looks like we do have a 29 man squad , 26 outfield
This squad has cost aprx, 600m depending if you include add ons
Just over 1 billion spent, As yet aprx 400m in players sales & loan fees brought in since Boehly- Clearlake took over in May 2022.
For all the FFP hawks the club is loaded with aprx 1 billion of debt, amortizing at aprx 200m per season for 5 seasons.
What can we expect, these guys are investment bankers
Thank you Tod
Unfortunately due to the significant injury list we seem to still be carrying larger squad than the Poch and the club had invisaged.
Poch had previously stated 22 out field players would be ideal
2 key spine players Fofana & Nkunku are long term, James is also not a certainty, as his recovery will need to be carefully managed & not rushed.
The squad are also carrying 3 player deemed surplus , who were not moved in this window: The Saudi window is open until the 7th
Malang Sarr- defender - serial loanee
Trevor Chalobah- unable to finalise a move of his choice.
Marco Cucuerella- loan interest shown, but no one with the nuts to take the risk on finding the decent player within
.In this window the club have brought 10 players into the first team squad.
Sanchez, Petrovic:
Disasi, Caicedo, Lavia, Ugo:
Nkunku, Jackson, Washington , Palmer.
All very solid signings imo
Pressure seemed to be mounting to sell Maatsen & Gallagher both of which did not happen, if it had, it would have been totally wrong, possibly the fact it did not happen could be suggested as the most significant positive on deadline day, depsite the arrival of the talented Cole Palmer from City.
The 29 man squad as follows:
Sanchez, Petrovic, Bettinelli:
(James), Gusto, Silva, Colwill, Badiasheli, (Fofana):
Disasi, Chilwell, Maatsen, (Cucuerella, Chalobah, Sarr.)
Enzo, Gallagher, Caicedo, Lavia, Ugo:
Sterling, Noni. Carney, Mudryk, Palmer:
(Nkunku), Jackson, Broja, Washington.
Well here we go , this squad is young, gifted and inexperienced
The race for a 5th place finish, continues today at Forest today.
COY Blues , KTBFFH
Glad thats over!
posted on 2/9/23
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
Like you and/or some other said yesterday, it's a young team and Poch has a proven track record for developing such sides. This needs to be seen at the very least in the medium term. It's no use getting all fidgety after half a season if things don't go swimmingly. See the full season out and then take stock of how much progress has been made.
Regarding spending and FFP, it's going to depend on how long the PL/football bubble continues to expand. The fresh influx of Saudi grillions suggests it isn't about to pop, so I reckon you'll be safe in that regard, the other big issue being TV deals. Any idea when the current PL deal is up?
It's a bit like a game of pass the parcel with a ticking time bomb, but it looks like there's still a few layers of wrapping left, so it'll probably end up exploding in someone else's face, not yours. Knowing them, it'll probably be Spurs the day they finally move on from Levyism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The new broadcasting deal kicks in 2025.
Chelsea’s issue of course like ifarka said is that from a financial perspective this squad has to qualify for the CL this season - they can’t afford for Poch to take a season or so to bed in, it’s schitt or bust now. The good news of course is that 5th gets CL and I can see Chelsea finishing 5th - although I think they will panic but another striker in Jan and I wouldn’t be surprised if Poch is jettisoned for a different manager around then either.
Despite all the money Chelsea have spent - it’s Everton that are truly faaaacked, they have nothing and need to survive the next 2 seasons before there is daylight again. Their window was terrible, bought a few more goals but got rid of a creator in Iwobi (I know) and have zero cover at the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are other considerations that might come into that.
Isn't/wasn't there some provision in FFP regarding investments after a change of ownership? Isn't FFP half trashed anyway?
Another consideration is whether they forked out the full valuation or whether they consider they got a cut-price deal and already calculated this revamp of the squad as part of their initial outlay.
I remember there was a fair bit of noise about the billion Abramovic had sunk into the club, but I can't remember if he eventually wrote it off or insisted on recouping that money for Putin's orphans. What happened there?
posted on 2/9/23
it’s schitt or bust now
----------
It's rarely that dramatic. It might mean a longer spell trying to claw their way back into contention for the major trophies, but they won't go bust short term. In addition, the last 20 years have built them up enough for them to establish themselves as one of those 'legacy' clubs that UEFA has been strong-armed into looking after.
posted on 2/9/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 8 minutes ago
it’s schitt or bust now
----------
It's rarely that dramatic. It might mean a longer spell trying to claw their way back into contention for the major trophies, but they won't go bust short term. In addition, the last 20 years have built them up enough for them to establish themselves as one of those 'legacy' clubs that UEFA has been strong-armed into looking after.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will have to sell if they don’t qualify - they will likely look to move on the HG players as that gives them the most bang for their FFP buck - if Reece stays fit and has a good season then maybe City would come in with circa £100m. Otherwise it would be Gallagher, Chalobah, etc
They won’t go bust but they have to keep selling without CL due to FFP restrictions.
The matter actually becomes more difficult for them once they are back in Europe because UEFAs FFP restrictions are tougher than the FA’s. They would also have a problem with HG players or “club trained” players. It’s a very bold strategy they are trying and it’s almost ridiculously complicated
posted on 2/9/23
They've still got a surplus of players, and plenty of young talents with a good enough sell on value to fetch decent enough fees simply because they're Chelsea material.
The older guys are the toughest to shift, and they've got rid of most of them over the past couple of seasons.
posted on 2/9/23
Its a bold strat- ridiculously complicated.
I actually think that this route was not the one that when they bought the club they would have chosen.
I think the abysmal decision making in the first 12 months , the loss of the C/L income and the overall effect on the players in general which has lead to complete over haul has been forced upon them.
In as much they believe throwing money at will bring an immediate result, well its not really like that, over 2/3 seasons with steady progression and huge finance you could say it has more of chance of working.
But in one ?
I think it is a bigger issue for Tod Boehly and his investors, currently he has made himself look like a fool.
That look will not bode well for his investment fund buddies.
At this point i think that they will sell any player not matter who to stay the right side of FFP.
If the club attains a C/l spot , the revenue streams will improve, the feel good factor will grow and so on.
Unquestionably the club need to build new revenue streams, to create more band width in the budget.
These guys may be fckn crazy, but i think that they are good with numbers and finance, if they stick to that & let the best footballing brains they can get to come to do the footballing startegy , it may get past this problem.
But ?????
posted on 2/9/23
I'm not an accounting expert by any stretch, but signing younger players on long-term contracts ought to mean sell-on values will remain decent for a few years.
Apparently, the wage bill has been reduced too, and the longer amortisation periods on the new deals mean the costs can be spread out and have a smaller impact on the annual accounts.
So, even if a lack of short-term success might hamper the ability to continue to sign players for a couple of windows, it doesn't immediately look like a terrible strategy in the long-term.
posted on 2/9/23
its only,
Agreed about the motivation issue for the previous squad, but going forward , it was clear , several players had had enough, Kovatic & Mount.
Others have been asked to sign new long term contracts and refused, it seems that on the basis of that those who did not sign contracts we considered saleable.
The current amortization is about 30m/ 50m per season above what Roman was figuring in.
But the issue is a club the size of Chelsea normally would have the following years revenue factored in, to be FFP compliant.
Currently it is not, that is the risk and issue with the strategy.
posted on 2/9/23
Imo the issue with long term contracts is player fatigue.
posted on 2/9/23
Well, the overall strategy, is high risk.
Its very ballsy.
I think that if they had'nt backed themselves in the way they have,( C/L qualification essential in one season) & putting so much pressure on a undoubtably talented manager & group of players over 2/3 seasons the club would have become a force again.
The reality imo today is that they might have to go backwards to go forwards and who knows after that how long it will take to become serious challengers ?
posted on 2/9/23
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 16 minutes ago
Imo the issue with long term contracts is player fatigue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I discussed this with Superb yesterday. I think it can also be problematic in terms of the future wage bill.
Younger players on smaller deals will always want to see them improved if they prove successful. The club might have improved bargaining power on such long deals, but good luck trying to compete if your stars are unhappy.