K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
comment by Buzzyspur (U10177)
posted 13 seconds ago
Is it cheating though?
Not complying with FFP is cheating.
Spending loads of money is not the same thing.
Wish my club would do the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why they get away with it. Most people are theeck anyway.
A quarter of total Premier League expenditure is Chelsea.
Guaranteed to be legit, no?
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
You've spent more than the whole of La Liga since Boehly took over.
When are you guys gonna accept that you are cheats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When they realise selling PL clubs aren’t going to accept money for players they sell over an 8 year period. Was listening to the Monday night club on 5live the other night and they were saying transfers are generally 2-3 payments to the selling club.
Chelsea are in a position to say on paper their outgoings are going to be set over an 8 year period (or length of contract). The reality is payments will be made over 2-3 payments.
Why dont vent your sour perspective at the owners of your club that have serially failed to capitalize on your clubs successes.
Ay dont worry they will milk it when you get sold?
Straight question do you fancy yourselves for a top 4 finish ?
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 53 seconds ago
Pretty sure you've made most of the OP up.
I mean;
Chalobah> valued 30m +
Gallagher > valued 40m+
Hall > valued 30m
You might value them at that, I'd be amazed if you actually got it.
----------------------------------------------------
We turned down 45mil for Gallagher in January. Newcastle's proposal is reported to be 30mil (which is a slight undersell imo). Chalobah will draw 30mil easy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah? Show me cos there's 13 days left.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Show you what? Everton bid 45mil for Gallagher in January & West Ham bid 40mil for him this summer - both were rejected. Look it up if you want.
Same with Hall. The fee being mentioned is 30mil from Newcastle, whether they formerly bid or we accept it if they do is unknown right now.
Chalobah I'd say is worth 30mil because he's decent, English & on a long contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is fine but I'm unsure how this supports them actually being sold in the next 13 days. Do you think West Ham and Newcastle are coming back in for him?
Chalobah is an absolutely muck footballer.
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get into the CL and UEFA say you can’t have all these players on 8 year contracts when we’ve changed our rules to a 5 year maximum to close the loophole Chelsea have exploited.
Will be interesting how it all pans out.
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 36 seconds ago
Why dont vent your sour perspective at the owners of your club that have serially failed to capitalize on your clubs successes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least we've got something to capitalise. Even the most ardent Chelsea fan knows deep down that they're cheating.
Your owner, and therefore your club, is a Saudi puppet FFS.
That right Anfield, but what does actually mean ?
The payments are spread over - 5- 8 years , the club carries the debt .
and ?
The unknown issue is how the club plans to deal with player fatigue.
But the strategy is not against any rules , it just currently goes against traditional common sense.
But hey, common sense 4 years ago would have suggested that offering players 500k per week would have been illogical.
The footballing landscape is changing, get with the program mate!
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get into the CL and UEFA say you can’t have all these players on 8 year contracts when we’ve changed our rules to a 5 year maximum to close the loophole Chelsea have exploited.
Will be interesting how it all pans out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen this mentioned a few times now and i have a question around this
Say Chelsea qualify for the Champions League next season. Surely the terms of the existing contracts can remain as they are?
Would it not be just any new ones from the year they qualify for Europe that would then need to be 5 years maximum?
K7 -Seriously , sorry mate , cant take that level of gobshiteing seriously.
Spend a bit of time and do some proper research if you feel the need to comment.
I actually think that when you put this summer into perspective, yes we've spent a lot of money, but we've also recouped a lot. At present we have a net spend of around 100m this summer. If we can offload these players, we may actually break even for the summer and then we're talking about the January window and these debts being amorticizd.
We actually did well with the fees we got for Havertz and Mount. Overall, we may have lost 10m on Havertz but when you see how much loan fees cost these days, it's not bad for 3 seasons. With Mount, I am not sure how much more we would have got for him even if he had 3 years left on his contract - maybe 75m? So to get 55m is not bad really.
If we can offload a few more cover players, I don't think the financial picture will be as bleak as people are painting.
comment by Buzzyspur (U10177)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get into the CL and UEFA say you can’t have all these players on 8 year contracts when we’ve changed our rules to a 5 year maximum to close the loophole Chelsea have exploited.
Will be interesting how it all pans out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen this mentioned a few times now and i have a question around this
Say Chelsea qualify for the Champions League next season. Surely the terms of the existing contracts can remain as they are?
Would it not be just any new ones from the year they qualify for Europe that would then need to be 5 years maximum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm wondering the same thing. Usually thses things are not retrospective. But even if they were, FFP still allows you to make quite a large loss against your season revenues, you don't have to be in positive numebrs. It just depends if the real numbers are what we believe they are or not.
Buz,
Retrospectively change the rules.
The loop hole as you call it has been closed.
But would it be unreasonable to suggest that applies going forward, it will be a challengeable point imo.
Ie, From the date of the change, no new players contracted would be eligible, those prior stand?
Yes it is an unknown.
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
That right Anfield, but what does actually mean ?
The payments are spread over - 5- 8 years , the club carries the debt .
and ?
The unknown issue is how the club plans to deal with player fatigue.
But the strategy is not against any rules , it just currently goes against traditional common sense.
But hey, common sense 4 years ago would have suggested that offering players 500k per week would have been illogical.
The footballing landscape is changing, get with the program mate!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve only heard a little about this so am not fully ITK or anything. My understanding is Chelsea qualify for the CL next season UEFA may say well the players on 8 year contracts aren’t eligible for our comp.
This aside, what incentive is there for selling clubs to amortise payments over such a long period? Surely that would be detrimental to themselves. Take Brighton for example, battered in the transfer window, lost most of their top players. Why would they accept £11m over 8 years instead of 2-3 payments of +£30m?
The former makes no sense in terms of replacing the players they’ve sold.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
That right Anfield, but what does actually mean ?
The payments are spread over - 5- 8 years , the club carries the debt .
and ?
The unknown issue is how the club plans to deal with player fatigue.
But the strategy is not against any rules , it just currently goes against traditional common sense.
But hey, common sense 4 years ago would have suggested that offering players 500k per week would have been illogical.
The footballing landscape is changing, get with the program mate!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve only heard a little about this so am not fully ITK or anything. My understanding is Chelsea qualify for the CL next season UEFA may say well the players on 8 year contracts aren’t eligible for our comp.
This aside, what incentive is there for selling clubs to amortise payments over such a long period? Surely that would be detrimental to themselves. Take Brighton for example, battered in the transfer window, lost most of their top players. Why would they accept £11m over 8 years instead of 2-3 payments of +£30m?
The former makes no sense in terms of replacing the players they’ve sold.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not how amortization works. Brighton will receive their money in the form of a lump sum and payments over a period they agree with Chelsea. However, that 110m will show up on Chelsea's books as 11m a year for his 8 year contract.
Moreover, UEFA are unlikely to say these players are not eligible, an employer can give the length of contract they wish. However, UEFA may tell clubs that for their FFP, player values can only be amorticized over 5 years, meaning that Caicedo will appear as a 20m yearly debt on Chelsea's balance sheet.
“ That's not how amortization works. Brighton will receive their money in the form of a lump sum and payments over a period they agree with Chelsea. However, that 110m will show up on Chelsea's books as 11m a year for his 8 year contract.”
On what planet is this legit? The discrepancy between what the books say and what they’ve actually paid out works how? Write it off as debt but to whom?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
“ That's not how amortization works. Brighton will receive their money in the form of a lump sum and payments over a period they agree with Chelsea. However, that 110m will show up on Chelsea's books as 11m a year for his 8 year contract.”
On what planet is this legit? The discrepancy between what the books say and what they’ve actually paid out works how? Write it off as debt but to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every club does it. It is how the depreciation of assets works in the real world. That's why we pay accountants more than they are worth
Fields,
As i have mentioned, imo, the long term amortization, does give the club an edge with the attractiveness of the contract offered. As we have seen with Caicedo & Lavia.
Does this currently look like safe prudent business practice ? no absolutely not.
But the footballing landscape is changing, the owners of CFc are investment bankers, they manage a 90usd fund.
Going by there current track record they seem to bullish, they must have an assumption that they will be able to be able to manage FFP.
look what they are doing is a long term business, it is unlikely that they are going to dig themselves into a whole which will stall their progress, any more than already have.
It all may seem controversial at this point, but as Eric has previously said the numbers are becoming manageable as the sales continue in this window.
Going forward, C/l is essential, there will be an an amortization challenge for Europe.
But all this is issues are to be managed going forward, it is not cheating, it is the stuff of an highly competitive sports business environment on the the 21st century.
Its is a highly risky strategy, that is it imo
Fields amortization has been going in football for decades, CFc & Boehly have not just conjured it up mate
While not unlawful, the strategy is very risky. These players really need to deliver, otherwise it's curtains.
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
While not unlawful, the strategy is very risky. These players really need to deliver, otherwise it's curtains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that even the most blinkered Chelsea fan would agree with you about this. If Caicedo, Enzo and Lavia work out in the decade to come, we will have a top midfield. However, imagine that two of these players fail to develop as predicted, then we could be in big trouble as we will face massive losses on resale and difficulty finding clubs to take them. Same for Mudryk. Other players such as Mudueke, Jackson, Diasi, Badiashile etc are relatively small outlays who we should be able to recoup money on should we need to. The key will also to bring academy players through, give them a couple of games and sell them to raise funds. This is something we've done well.
Curtains , seriously when you invest over 3 billion into your business and commit another 1,250bln, FFP compliance will not be a lights out moment.
Sign in if you want to comment
Update- CFc on track to bring in another75m
Page 2 of 3
posted on 17/8/23
K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
posted on 17/8/23
comment by Buzzyspur (U10177)
posted 13 seconds ago
Is it cheating though?
Not complying with FFP is cheating.
Spending loads of money is not the same thing.
Wish my club would do the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why they get away with it. Most people are theeck anyway.
posted on 17/8/23
A quarter of total Premier League expenditure is Chelsea.
Guaranteed to be legit, no?
posted on 17/8/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
You've spent more than the whole of La Liga since Boehly took over.
When are you guys gonna accept that you are cheats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When they realise selling PL clubs aren’t going to accept money for players they sell over an 8 year period. Was listening to the Monday night club on 5live the other night and they were saying transfers are generally 2-3 payments to the selling club.
Chelsea are in a position to say on paper their outgoings are going to be set over an 8 year period (or length of contract). The reality is payments will be made over 2-3 payments.
posted on 17/8/23
Why dont vent your sour perspective at the owners of your club that have serially failed to capitalize on your clubs successes.
Ay dont worry they will milk it when you get sold?
Straight question do you fancy yourselves for a top 4 finish ?
posted on 17/8/23
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 53 seconds ago
Pretty sure you've made most of the OP up.
I mean;
Chalobah> valued 30m +
Gallagher > valued 40m+
Hall > valued 30m
You might value them at that, I'd be amazed if you actually got it.
----------------------------------------------------
We turned down 45mil for Gallagher in January. Newcastle's proposal is reported to be 30mil (which is a slight undersell imo). Chalobah will draw 30mil easy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah? Show me cos there's 13 days left.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Show you what? Everton bid 45mil for Gallagher in January & West Ham bid 40mil for him this summer - both were rejected. Look it up if you want.
Same with Hall. The fee being mentioned is 30mil from Newcastle, whether they formerly bid or we accept it if they do is unknown right now.
Chalobah I'd say is worth 30mil because he's decent, English & on a long contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is fine but I'm unsure how this supports them actually being sold in the next 13 days. Do you think West Ham and Newcastle are coming back in for him?
Chalobah is an absolutely muck footballer.
posted on 17/8/23
For K7 my last post .
posted on 17/8/23
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get into the CL and UEFA say you can’t have all these players on 8 year contracts when we’ve changed our rules to a 5 year maximum to close the loophole Chelsea have exploited.
Will be interesting how it all pans out.
posted on 17/8/23
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 36 seconds ago
Why dont vent your sour perspective at the owners of your club that have serially failed to capitalize on your clubs successes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least we've got something to capitalise. Even the most ardent Chelsea fan knows deep down that they're cheating.
posted on 17/8/23
Your owner, and therefore your club, is a Saudi puppet FFS.
posted on 17/8/23
That right Anfield, but what does actually mean ?
The payments are spread over - 5- 8 years , the club carries the debt .
and ?
The unknown issue is how the club plans to deal with player fatigue.
But the strategy is not against any rules , it just currently goes against traditional common sense.
But hey, common sense 4 years ago would have suggested that offering players 500k per week would have been illogical.
The footballing landscape is changing, get with the program mate!
posted on 17/8/23
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get into the CL and UEFA say you can’t have all these players on 8 year contracts when we’ve changed our rules to a 5 year maximum to close the loophole Chelsea have exploited.
Will be interesting how it all pans out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen this mentioned a few times now and i have a question around this
Say Chelsea qualify for the Champions League next season. Surely the terms of the existing contracts can remain as they are?
Would it not be just any new ones from the year they qualify for Europe that would then need to be 5 years maximum?
posted on 17/8/23
K7 -Seriously , sorry mate , cant take that level of gobshiteing seriously.
Spend a bit of time and do some proper research if you feel the need to comment.
posted on 17/8/23
I actually think that when you put this summer into perspective, yes we've spent a lot of money, but we've also recouped a lot. At present we have a net spend of around 100m this summer. If we can offload these players, we may actually break even for the summer and then we're talking about the January window and these debts being amorticizd.
We actually did well with the fees we got for Havertz and Mount. Overall, we may have lost 10m on Havertz but when you see how much loan fees cost these days, it's not bad for 3 seasons. With Mount, I am not sure how much more we would have got for him even if he had 3 years left on his contract - maybe 75m? So to get 55m is not bad really.
If we can offload a few more cover players, I don't think the financial picture will be as bleak as people are painting.
posted on 17/8/23
comment by Buzzyspur (U10177)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
K7, now that is not very nice is it
Just because the owners are backing the their club and have the money to do this, all within FFP.
Yes there is an element of risk as going forward this level amortization requires that Cfc to have an income of aprx 500m p annum, which without C/L football is improbable, as it will require the club to bridge the gaps with significant player sales.
This is an unknown until next season, but on look of it Cfc do seem to be in with a fighting chance of a 4th/ 5th place finish which will attain C/L football.
So please if wish to be taken as a credible voice ,stop chatting shhhhitttte mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get into the CL and UEFA say you can’t have all these players on 8 year contracts when we’ve changed our rules to a 5 year maximum to close the loophole Chelsea have exploited.
Will be interesting how it all pans out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen this mentioned a few times now and i have a question around this
Say Chelsea qualify for the Champions League next season. Surely the terms of the existing contracts can remain as they are?
Would it not be just any new ones from the year they qualify for Europe that would then need to be 5 years maximum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm wondering the same thing. Usually thses things are not retrospective. But even if they were, FFP still allows you to make quite a large loss against your season revenues, you don't have to be in positive numebrs. It just depends if the real numbers are what we believe they are or not.
posted on 17/8/23
Buz,
Retrospectively change the rules.
The loop hole as you call it has been closed.
But would it be unreasonable to suggest that applies going forward, it will be a challengeable point imo.
Ie, From the date of the change, no new players contracted would be eligible, those prior stand?
Yes it is an unknown.
posted on 17/8/23
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
That right Anfield, but what does actually mean ?
The payments are spread over - 5- 8 years , the club carries the debt .
and ?
The unknown issue is how the club plans to deal with player fatigue.
But the strategy is not against any rules , it just currently goes against traditional common sense.
But hey, common sense 4 years ago would have suggested that offering players 500k per week would have been illogical.
The footballing landscape is changing, get with the program mate!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve only heard a little about this so am not fully ITK or anything. My understanding is Chelsea qualify for the CL next season UEFA may say well the players on 8 year contracts aren’t eligible for our comp.
This aside, what incentive is there for selling clubs to amortise payments over such a long period? Surely that would be detrimental to themselves. Take Brighton for example, battered in the transfer window, lost most of their top players. Why would they accept £11m over 8 years instead of 2-3 payments of +£30m?
The former makes no sense in terms of replacing the players they’ve sold.
posted on 17/8/23
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 3 minutes ago
That right Anfield, but what does actually mean ?
The payments are spread over - 5- 8 years , the club carries the debt .
and ?
The unknown issue is how the club plans to deal with player fatigue.
But the strategy is not against any rules , it just currently goes against traditional common sense.
But hey, common sense 4 years ago would have suggested that offering players 500k per week would have been illogical.
The footballing landscape is changing, get with the program mate!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve only heard a little about this so am not fully ITK or anything. My understanding is Chelsea qualify for the CL next season UEFA may say well the players on 8 year contracts aren’t eligible for our comp.
This aside, what incentive is there for selling clubs to amortise payments over such a long period? Surely that would be detrimental to themselves. Take Brighton for example, battered in the transfer window, lost most of their top players. Why would they accept £11m over 8 years instead of 2-3 payments of +£30m?
The former makes no sense in terms of replacing the players they’ve sold.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not how amortization works. Brighton will receive their money in the form of a lump sum and payments over a period they agree with Chelsea. However, that 110m will show up on Chelsea's books as 11m a year for his 8 year contract.
Moreover, UEFA are unlikely to say these players are not eligible, an employer can give the length of contract they wish. However, UEFA may tell clubs that for their FFP, player values can only be amorticized over 5 years, meaning that Caicedo will appear as a 20m yearly debt on Chelsea's balance sheet.
posted on 17/8/23
“ That's not how amortization works. Brighton will receive their money in the form of a lump sum and payments over a period they agree with Chelsea. However, that 110m will show up on Chelsea's books as 11m a year for his 8 year contract.”
On what planet is this legit? The discrepancy between what the books say and what they’ve actually paid out works how? Write it off as debt but to whom?
posted on 17/8/23
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
“ That's not how amortization works. Brighton will receive their money in the form of a lump sum and payments over a period they agree with Chelsea. However, that 110m will show up on Chelsea's books as 11m a year for his 8 year contract.”
On what planet is this legit? The discrepancy between what the books say and what they’ve actually paid out works how? Write it off as debt but to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every club does it. It is how the depreciation of assets works in the real world. That's why we pay accountants more than they are worth
posted on 17/8/23
Fields,
As i have mentioned, imo, the long term amortization, does give the club an edge with the attractiveness of the contract offered. As we have seen with Caicedo & Lavia.
Does this currently look like safe prudent business practice ? no absolutely not.
But the footballing landscape is changing, the owners of CFc are investment bankers, they manage a 90usd fund.
Going by there current track record they seem to bullish, they must have an assumption that they will be able to be able to manage FFP.
look what they are doing is a long term business, it is unlikely that they are going to dig themselves into a whole which will stall their progress, any more than already have.
It all may seem controversial at this point, but as Eric has previously said the numbers are becoming manageable as the sales continue in this window.
Going forward, C/l is essential, there will be an an amortization challenge for Europe.
But all this is issues are to be managed going forward, it is not cheating, it is the stuff of an highly competitive sports business environment on the the 21st century.
Its is a highly risky strategy, that is it imo
posted on 17/8/23
Fields amortization has been going in football for decades, CFc & Boehly have not just conjured it up mate
posted on 17/8/23
While not unlawful, the strategy is very risky. These players really need to deliver, otherwise it's curtains.
posted on 17/8/23
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
While not unlawful, the strategy is very risky. These players really need to deliver, otherwise it's curtains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that even the most blinkered Chelsea fan would agree with you about this. If Caicedo, Enzo and Lavia work out in the decade to come, we will have a top midfield. However, imagine that two of these players fail to develop as predicted, then we could be in big trouble as we will face massive losses on resale and difficulty finding clubs to take them. Same for Mudryk. Other players such as Mudueke, Jackson, Diasi, Badiashile etc are relatively small outlays who we should be able to recoup money on should we need to. The key will also to bring academy players through, give them a couple of games and sell them to raise funds. This is something we've done well.
posted on 17/8/23
Curtains , seriously when you invest over 3 billion into your business and commit another 1,250bln, FFP compliance will not be a lights out moment.
Page 2 of 3