Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 18 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ChElSeA aRe FiNaNcIaLlY dOpEd ItS sO uNfAiR bRo
They signed played on 8-10 year contracts, spreading the transfer fees out over those periods on their books. From this summer onwards that loophole doesn’t work anymore.
As for spending big this Summer, they are looking to offload a lot of players for a lot of money so they will obviously spend a lot of what they earn. United aren’t going to get much in transfer fees for the likes of Phil Jones, Van Der Beek, Maguire and Fred, are they?
No, we won’t. Although I think we’ll get a fair bit for Maguire and Henderson. And I think we should sell Sancho but know we won’t.
Chelsea are in an awkward position though because they need to sell to free up funds, which other clubs know so I can see teams playing the waiting game with them until they get desperate and lower their valuations for the players they want to get rid of.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
I don’t know how Chelsea were able to spend SIX HUNDRED MILLION without falling foul of FFP, regardless of contract length.
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except on this point he's not wrong.
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be miserable too if West Ham were more successful than my club....but there it is....
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth always hurts. Denial hurts as well.
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
I don’t know how Chelsea were able to spend SIX HUNDRED MILLION without falling foul of FFP, regardless of contract length.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Google it. It will help.
“The transfer spending at Stamford Bridge has reached record levels since last summer, but has left many asking how Chelsea are able to spend so much money and stay within Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. Under Premier League FFP rules, clubs are allowed to lose £105m over a rolling three-year period.
UEFA rules are different, allowing only a £53m loss over a three-year period. UEFA have also introduced a soft wage cap that limits spending on wages, plus agent fees and net transfer expense to an initial 90 per cent of revenue in 2023-24. That figure will then drop to 80 per cent and then 70 per cent in the two following seasons.“
According to the table in the OP, Chelsea have lost over €400m in the last three years. They’re way over the threshold for losses.
Seems the reason is simple. Chelsea have what seems like 100s of players and will offload plenty. United owners have given them over a billion since Fergie left, it's actually closer to 2, and the club has a billion of debt (of which 300m is outstanding transfer fees)
Chelsea have clubs wanting their players. It's a certainty plenty will leave. Transfer fees can be put on the accounts that year as a lump sum, but transfers in are spread over the contract length. This makes sales super important, as well as the effect freeing up wages has on ffp too.
United owners are trying to get investment, and with the history of wasting cash on over inflated fees and wages, it's likely they aren't so keen to blow more cash 😂
Also factor in the disgusting wages united pay most of their flops, it's a huge struggle to sell them. That means no big fees on the balance sheet and the wages means the club continues to bleed and waste money.
It's that simple really. Chelsea wiped the debt and their issue is the yank owner bought far too many players all at once. They have the building blocks there and good accounts, it's just a mess as it all happened in such a short time frame.
United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf
But how are they not already breaking FFP rules given their losses? From that article I’ve quoted it seems FFP losses are different to actual losses. Actual losses will include the actual amount of transfer fees paid out whereas FFP allows amortisation of transfer fees.
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the first lot are that great tbh. Haven't achieved much. Bruno is on high wages for how good he is, and he got a handful of assists this season. Didn't he get 1 more assist than Solanke? 😂 hardly justifies 250k a week.
Varane and casemiro are on big big wages and have no resale value. Maguire, Antony, sancho, martial etc are on big salaries too, which is why united can't sell them. Bonkers wages in fact.
Rashford had his first real good season in an eternity and carried united for large parts but was still the 10th best striker in Pl for goals/minutes.
He just beats salah too by a couple minutes per goal but salah got 12 assists to his 5, and no one is gonna try and say rashford is better than salah let's be honest 😂
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the first lot are that great tbh. Haven't achieved much. Bruno is on high wages for how good he is, and he got a handful of assists this season. Didn't he get 1 more assist than Solanke? 😂 hardly justifies 250k a week.
Varane and casemiro are on big big wages and have no resale value. Maguire, Antony, sancho, martial etc are on big salaries too, which is why united can't sell them. Bonkers wages in fact.
Rashford had his first real good season in an eternity and carried united for large parts but was still the 10th best striker in Pl for goals/minutes.
He just beats salah too by a couple minutes per goal but salah got 12 assists to his 5, and no one is gonna try and say rashford is better than salah let's be honest 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not our resident "Crawley Town" fan anyway. Bruno did create the most chances in the league by the way. Trash like Weggy and Martial couldn't finish a fish supper but that doesn't take away from Bruno's contributions. Hence him featuring in the Whoscored team of the season
Once you understand that net spend isn’t actually a thing, you’ll better understand FFP.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth always hurts. Denial hurts as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aww Sandy cheer up. You might win something eventually.
Will be interesting how much they actually sell their players for this summer? Lots of stuff saying they’re demanding stupidly high fees (Mount for £80m for eg) which probably makes sense when you see how much they over paid for players themselves.
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
But how are they not already breaking FFP rules given their losses? From that article I’ve quoted it seems FFP losses are different to actual losses. Actual losses will include the actual amount of transfer fees paid out whereas FFP allows amortisation of transfer fees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because, in the most simple terms, losses deriving from transfer spend don’t all accrue against the year in which the transfer occurred. Instead, the cost is spread across the length of the player’s contract.
So if a club spends £80m on a player who is signed to an eight year contract, say, for the season in which the player was signed, the cost of the player will look like £10m for FFP accounting purposes, and not £80m. Each subsequent season for the remainder of the contract will see a further £10m written down.
So Chelsea’s immediate position isn’t quite as serious as it looks, but it does mean they’ve made a rod for their backs for seasons to come unless they’re able to a) offload a bunch of players for decent fees to offset the ongoing write down, and/or b) (very) significantly increase their revenue.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Will be interesting how much they actually sell their players for this summer? Lots of stuff saying they’re demanding stupidly high fees (Mount for £80m for eg) which probably makes sense when you see how much they over paid for players themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one big problem they’re going to have is that the players who’ll make the biggest difference to them if they can shift them for FFP purposes are their homegrown players.
These are also the players which are going to be the easiest to offload, because they’re for the most part on more sensible wages.
So far, so good.
But the problem is a lot of these homegrown players are amongst the best and most promising they have in their squad.
Ideally, they’d want to be bringing money in by shifting the likes of Koulibaly, Lukaku, Ziyech, Pulisic, Cucurella, etc. But they’ll be tough to move on, and Chelsea will be making losses on all of those players, which really won’t help them much.
Instead, they’re probably going to lose some of the likes of Mount, Broja, James, Chalobah, Gallagher, etc. because they’ll be easier to shift, for good money, and pure profit for FFP accounting purposes.
Famous last words of course, but right now it feels like only Mount and James would be missed.
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the first lot are that great tbh. Haven't achieved much. Bruno is on high wages for how good he is, and he got a handful of assists this season. Didn't he get 1 more assist than Solanke? 😂 hardly justifies 250k a week.
Varane and casemiro are on big big wages and have no resale value. Maguire, Antony, sancho, martial etc are on big salaries too, which is why united can't sell them. Bonkers wages in fact.
Rashford had his first real good season in an eternity and carried united for large parts but was still the 10th best striker in Pl for goals/minutes.
He just beats salah too by a couple minutes per goal but salah got 12 assists to his 5, and no one is gonna try and say rashford is better than salah let's be honest 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not our resident "Crawley Town" fan anyway. Bruno did create the most chances in the league by the way. Trash like Weggy and Martial couldn't finish a fish supper but that doesn't take away from Bruno's contributions. Hence him featuring in the Whoscored team of the season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Pl he was joint 9th for assists and they are what lead to goals. 1 ahead of solanke. He goes missing in most big games which is why united record wasn't great against the big teams.
I don't think Bruno being in the 'who scored' team of the season means anything 😂 never even heard of it.
VVD was voted FIFA fifPro only cb in their 11, so basically the best cb in the world, and yet he had an off season by his standards. And that's voted for by professional players from 68 countries.
Them team of the years and best ever teams are usually a load of 5hit. Look at terry and ferdinando as examples. Now they've retired people forget they too had bad seasons.
I genuinely stand by my original point though that united's squad isn't value for money, with what they've spent, and heir situation is more dire than Chelsea.
Chelsea can easily sell players for good fees and on the balance sheet that's huge, as the whole.amount goes on this year's accounts. Signings get spread over the length of the deal.
That's why juve and napoli got investigated as they were purposely moving people for inflated fees to boost their accounts, abusing this accounting method.
If Chelsea raise 2-300m.in sales, as is def possible, they will have no issues at all. United are a billion in debt.
Sign in if you want to comment
Chelsea & FFP
Page 1 of 2
posted on 10/6/23
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 18 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ChElSeA aRe FiNaNcIaLlY dOpEd ItS sO uNfAiR bRo
posted on 10/6/23
They signed played on 8-10 year contracts, spreading the transfer fees out over those periods on their books. From this summer onwards that loophole doesn’t work anymore.
As for spending big this Summer, they are looking to offload a lot of players for a lot of money so they will obviously spend a lot of what they earn. United aren’t going to get much in transfer fees for the likes of Phil Jones, Van Der Beek, Maguire and Fred, are they?
posted on 10/6/23
No, we won’t. Although I think we’ll get a fair bit for Maguire and Henderson. And I think we should sell Sancho but know we won’t.
posted on 10/6/23
Chelsea are in an awkward position though because they need to sell to free up funds, which other clubs know so I can see teams playing the waiting game with them until they get desperate and lower their valuations for the players they want to get rid of.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
posted on 10/6/23
I don’t know how Chelsea were able to spend SIX HUNDRED MILLION without falling foul of FFP, regardless of contract length.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except on this point he's not wrong.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be miserable too if West Ham were more successful than my club....but there it is....
posted on 10/6/23
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth always hurts. Denial hurts as well.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
I don’t know how Chelsea were able to spend SIX HUNDRED MILLION without falling foul of FFP, regardless of contract length.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Google it. It will help.
posted on 10/6/23
“The transfer spending at Stamford Bridge has reached record levels since last summer, but has left many asking how Chelsea are able to spend so much money and stay within Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. Under Premier League FFP rules, clubs are allowed to lose £105m over a rolling three-year period.
UEFA rules are different, allowing only a £53m loss over a three-year period. UEFA have also introduced a soft wage cap that limits spending on wages, plus agent fees and net transfer expense to an initial 90 per cent of revenue in 2023-24. That figure will then drop to 80 per cent and then 70 per cent in the two following seasons.“
According to the table in the OP, Chelsea have lost over €400m in the last three years. They’re way over the threshold for losses.
posted on 10/6/23
Seems the reason is simple. Chelsea have what seems like 100s of players and will offload plenty. United owners have given them over a billion since Fergie left, it's actually closer to 2, and the club has a billion of debt (of which 300m is outstanding transfer fees)
Chelsea have clubs wanting their players. It's a certainty plenty will leave. Transfer fees can be put on the accounts that year as a lump sum, but transfers in are spread over the contract length. This makes sales super important, as well as the effect freeing up wages has on ffp too.
United owners are trying to get investment, and with the history of wasting cash on over inflated fees and wages, it's likely they aren't so keen to blow more cash 😂
Also factor in the disgusting wages united pay most of their flops, it's a huge struggle to sell them. That means no big fees on the balance sheet and the wages means the club continues to bleed and waste money.
It's that simple really. Chelsea wiped the debt and their issue is the yank owner bought far too many players all at once. They have the building blocks there and good accounts, it's just a mess as it all happened in such a short time frame.
United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf
posted on 10/6/23
But how are they not already breaking FFP rules given their losses? From that article I’ve quoted it seems FFP losses are different to actual losses. Actual losses will include the actual amount of transfer fees paid out whereas FFP allows amortisation of transfer fees.
posted on 10/6/23
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
posted on 10/6/23
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 10/6/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the first lot are that great tbh. Haven't achieved much. Bruno is on high wages for how good he is, and he got a handful of assists this season. Didn't he get 1 more assist than Solanke? 😂 hardly justifies 250k a week.
Varane and casemiro are on big big wages and have no resale value. Maguire, Antony, sancho, martial etc are on big salaries too, which is why united can't sell them. Bonkers wages in fact.
Rashford had his first real good season in an eternity and carried united for large parts but was still the 10th best striker in Pl for goals/minutes.
He just beats salah too by a couple minutes per goal but salah got 12 assists to his 5, and no one is gonna try and say rashford is better than salah let's be honest 😂
posted on 10/6/23
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the first lot are that great tbh. Haven't achieved much. Bruno is on high wages for how good he is, and he got a handful of assists this season. Didn't he get 1 more assist than Solanke? 😂 hardly justifies 250k a week.
Varane and casemiro are on big big wages and have no resale value. Maguire, Antony, sancho, martial etc are on big salaries too, which is why united can't sell them. Bonkers wages in fact.
Rashford had his first real good season in an eternity and carried united for large parts but was still the 10th best striker in Pl for goals/minutes.
He just beats salah too by a couple minutes per goal but salah got 12 assists to his 5, and no one is gonna try and say rashford is better than salah let's be honest 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not our resident "Crawley Town" fan anyway. Bruno did create the most chances in the league by the way. Trash like Weggy and Martial couldn't finish a fish supper but that doesn't take away from Bruno's contributions. Hence him featuring in the Whoscored team of the season
posted on 10/6/23
Once you understand that net spend isn’t actually a thing, you’ll better understand FFP.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Chelsea, like Man City will try to fiddle the books. It seems rules don't apply to the financially doped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is tainted. Should come with an asterisk. On the grounds that Sandy is a miserable ould bollix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth always hurts. Denial hurts as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aww Sandy cheer up. You might win something eventually.
posted on 10/6/23
Will be interesting how much they actually sell their players for this summer? Lots of stuff saying they’re demanding stupidly high fees (Mount for £80m for eg) which probably makes sense when you see how much they over paid for players themselves.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
But how are they not already breaking FFP rules given their losses? From that article I’ve quoted it seems FFP losses are different to actual losses. Actual losses will include the actual amount of transfer fees paid out whereas FFP allows amortisation of transfer fees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because, in the most simple terms, losses deriving from transfer spend don’t all accrue against the year in which the transfer occurred. Instead, the cost is spread across the length of the player’s contract.
So if a club spends £80m on a player who is signed to an eight year contract, say, for the season in which the player was signed, the cost of the player will look like £10m for FFP accounting purposes, and not £80m. Each subsequent season for the remainder of the contract will see a further £10m written down.
So Chelsea’s immediate position isn’t quite as serious as it looks, but it does mean they’ve made a rod for their backs for seasons to come unless they’re able to a) offload a bunch of players for decent fees to offset the ongoing write down, and/or b) (very) significantly increase their revenue.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Will be interesting how much they actually sell their players for this summer? Lots of stuff saying they’re demanding stupidly high fees (Mount for £80m for eg) which probably makes sense when you see how much they over paid for players themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one big problem they’re going to have is that the players who’ll make the biggest difference to them if they can shift them for FFP purposes are their homegrown players.
These are also the players which are going to be the easiest to offload, because they’re for the most part on more sensible wages.
So far, so good.
But the problem is a lot of these homegrown players are amongst the best and most promising they have in their squad.
Ideally, they’d want to be bringing money in by shifting the likes of Koulibaly, Lukaku, Ziyech, Pulisic, Cucurella, etc. But they’ll be tough to move on, and Chelsea will be making losses on all of those players, which really won’t help them much.
Instead, they’re probably going to lose some of the likes of Mount, Broja, James, Chalobah, Gallagher, etc. because they’ll be easier to shift, for good money, and pure profit for FFP accounting purposes.
posted on 10/6/23
Famous last words of course, but right now it feels like only Mount and James would be missed.
posted on 10/6/23
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
“United have a crumbling stadium and their best players are old with no resale value. United are a real mess tbf”
Shaw, Martinez, Rashford, Bruno are all good ages, under 28.
Casemiro is the only one of our best players who is “old”. Verane has injury issues but even he inly turned 30 a month ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the first lot are that great tbh. Haven't achieved much. Bruno is on high wages for how good he is, and he got a handful of assists this season. Didn't he get 1 more assist than Solanke? 😂 hardly justifies 250k a week.
Varane and casemiro are on big big wages and have no resale value. Maguire, Antony, sancho, martial etc are on big salaries too, which is why united can't sell them. Bonkers wages in fact.
Rashford had his first real good season in an eternity and carried united for large parts but was still the 10th best striker in Pl for goals/minutes.
He just beats salah too by a couple minutes per goal but salah got 12 assists to his 5, and no one is gonna try and say rashford is better than salah let's be honest 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not our resident "Crawley Town" fan anyway. Bruno did create the most chances in the league by the way. Trash like Weggy and Martial couldn't finish a fish supper but that doesn't take away from Bruno's contributions. Hence him featuring in the Whoscored team of the season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Pl he was joint 9th for assists and they are what lead to goals. 1 ahead of solanke. He goes missing in most big games which is why united record wasn't great against the big teams.
I don't think Bruno being in the 'who scored' team of the season means anything 😂 never even heard of it.
VVD was voted FIFA fifPro only cb in their 11, so basically the best cb in the world, and yet he had an off season by his standards. And that's voted for by professional players from 68 countries.
Them team of the years and best ever teams are usually a load of 5hit. Look at terry and ferdinando as examples. Now they've retired people forget they too had bad seasons.
I genuinely stand by my original point though that united's squad isn't value for money, with what they've spent, and heir situation is more dire than Chelsea.
Chelsea can easily sell players for good fees and on the balance sheet that's huge, as the whole.amount goes on this year's accounts. Signings get spread over the length of the deal.
That's why juve and napoli got investigated as they were purposely moving people for inflated fees to boost their accounts, abusing this accounting method.
If Chelsea raise 2-300m.in sales, as is def possible, they will have no issues at all. United are a billion in debt.
Page 1 of 2