• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Non LFC summer transfer thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
So @Beamrider WTF are Chelsea still dishing out 8 year contracts. Seems fucking mental
I agree. Maybe they think they'll be able to argue the toss further down the line but it puts more pressure on their finances - it will drive up agent fees (which are based on a percentage of guaranteed wages over the player's contract) and if the player doesn't work out then it will make it more difficult to move them on. It's madness.
 
I wonder about motivation with these contracts. If a player is motivated by achievement and fan feedback then all well. If they can see the total value of their contract and chill, then all’s we’ll.

If however, they see the fact that they get paid a fortune for years whatever the effort in, or they find themselves achieving but unable to get the leverage for a pay rise due to being tied up long term ..

Gonna need strong, stable management.

@ Chelsea …
 
All this nonsense makes the asking price of Cheick Doucoure look reasonable now
 
All this nonsense makes the asking price of Cheick Doucoure look reasonable now

Guess what? If we went crawling back to them now asking if that offer was still on the table, they'd hit us with a revised one that was £20m more. This has been a cock up of epic proportions.
 
Guess what? If we went crawling back to them now asking if that offer was still on the table, they'd hit us with a revised one that was £20m more. This has been a cock up of epic proportions.

Probably.

I'm hoping we hear NOTHING for the next week. Not because nothing's happening but because any further bids are done in a more professional way
 
I think it's correct about the Premier League. The UEFA press release on the change specifically states that it doesn't apply domestically if the domestic leagues allow more flexibility and I don't recall reading that the PL has brought in such a rule. Also, bear in mind that the break-even limit in the PL is much higher so there is an element of the PL sticking their heads in the sand anyway.

I don't agree with the second part - the UEFA regs are quite clear that the COST of the player's registration is amortised over no more than five years and there is no provision for adjusting this if the club isn't in Europe for part of that period.
 
It isn't. Jordan's very good at convincing people he understands more than he does.
So Chelsea's finances in recent years have basically been at a break-even level, before deducting amortisation and adding in profit on sales of players.
If we assume that revenue / overhead structure would holds for this year under normal operating conditions, then they'll actually be starting below that level because they have no Europe, plus there's a good chance their wage bill will have rocketed with all the transfers they've done.
I estimate the amortisation charges (adjusted for FFP) at around £180m.
So they'll lose upwards of £180m, before any player sales.
They raised £130m by my estimate with the sales in the current window, but those profits go into last year.
So I reckon they lose £180m + next year.
The fundamental flaws in Jordan's analysis are that he assumes:
- Chelsea don't have any costs related to players pre Boehly era
- That they all work for free (or at least for less than the players who've left)
- That not being in Europe will have no impact on revenues
- That they haven't been badly bruised by the period of sanctions before Roman fucked off
Obviously none of that is true, and when you factor it in, they're in a mess.

This all sounds like the mess Leeds got themselves into a few years back, overpaying for players, giving them massive salaries, that they ended up subsidising when selling on and then relying on income that never materialised.

Obviously, Leeds didn’t have PE backing them, but they also didn’t have any FFP (I know, I know) regulations they had to abide by.
 
That's all true, but Pochettino was a good appointment. They may need to replace him once he gets them back among the leaders, but he's an excellent choice to take them there. More's the pity.
 
Its amazing what you can do with a bottomless pit of money, psycho owner and an attitude that FFP and the economic side of footy can get fucked.

We need to be realistic...
This is what is needed to compete.
We've been sleeping for years now ... it sucks, but at least we saw 19 and 6 ...
 
That's all true, but Pochettino was a good appointment. They may need to replace him once he gets them back among the leaders, but he's an excellent choice to take them there. More's the pity.

Great appointment if they dont want to win anything ;)
 
Ha. That's what I had in mind when I said they might need to replace him later. But he did a good job dragging Southampton up by their bootstraps and worked wonders taking Tottenham to a CL Final, though his decision to pick a clearly unfit Kane that night was symptomatic of what you're referring to. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom