-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Chelsea
- Thread starter RB00194
- Start date
Argyleloyal
Pasoti Announcer.
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
Cream First
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Brickfields Donor
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
- Apr 25, 2016
- 7,340
- 4,332
Seen something the other day they’ve got to raise something like £100million or more on the next four months else they will be investigated for breach of FFP
They’re struggling to forge an identity post Roman Abramovich. His iron fist way of ruling the club was unique but undeniably effective - everyone knew where they stood and everyone knew what was expected of them. The recent overlap stick to football podcast with Frank Lampard was interesting.
I think they thought that spending a billion on the best young talent now, was going to future proof them for years and that side would grow together to be world beaters.
Forgetting that those players aren’t guaranteed to just naturally get better, and will actually get worse and lose value if they’re part of a team losing every week, with no role models and experience bar rapidly declining Thiago Silva.
Forgetting that those players aren’t guaranteed to just naturally get better, and will actually get worse and lose value if they’re part of a team losing every week, with no role models and experience bar rapidly declining Thiago Silva.
Argyleloyal
Pasoti Announcer.
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
Cream First
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Brickfields Donor
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
- Apr 25, 2016
- 7,340
- 4,332
Mauricio Pochettino issued a damning takedown of himself and his Chelsea side's season by saying "we are all not good enough" after their 4-2 home defeat to Wolves.
Argyleloyal
Pasoti Announcer.
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
Cream First
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Brickfields Donor
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
- Apr 25, 2016
- 7,340
- 4,332
As a football fan, i have to say i'm delighted that the money is proving to be no help to them currently.
Recent history - Sanchez at Man Utd, Ozil at Arsenal and now Martial at United, are three instances of good players who are given staggering salaries and long contracts (longer than they should be offered) that turn bad, the player loses desire or the power goes to their head and they down tools.
United have tried to offload Martial at every transfer window, but he knows no one else is going to pay him as much as he gets now - now take Chelsea and the quite ridiculous 8 year contracts for unproven players, it only takes one of the top earners to down tools and its a disease that spreads, why am i being paid less than someone who doesn't care and doesn't want to play? Klopp and Pep's biggest success is that always seem to have a harmonious team that cares. The managerial merry go round at United and Chelsea has seen too many different players, being able too demand too much, because of the clubs desire for a quick fix.
In Chelsea's case, the players that are "homegrown" and do care are the ones they are trying to sell, as FFP rules state that homegrown players who are sold, are classed as 100% profit, so its currently a vicious circle for them.
Squad harmony is so often under-rated - just look at "relegated by Christmas" Luton, as an example of what happens when players are united. Chelsea are a team of individuals who just dont collectively care enough.
Recent history - Sanchez at Man Utd, Ozil at Arsenal and now Martial at United, are three instances of good players who are given staggering salaries and long contracts (longer than they should be offered) that turn bad, the player loses desire or the power goes to their head and they down tools.
United have tried to offload Martial at every transfer window, but he knows no one else is going to pay him as much as he gets now - now take Chelsea and the quite ridiculous 8 year contracts for unproven players, it only takes one of the top earners to down tools and its a disease that spreads, why am i being paid less than someone who doesn't care and doesn't want to play? Klopp and Pep's biggest success is that always seem to have a harmonious team that cares. The managerial merry go round at United and Chelsea has seen too many different players, being able too demand too much, because of the clubs desire for a quick fix.
In Chelsea's case, the players that are "homegrown" and do care are the ones they are trying to sell, as FFP rules state that homegrown players who are sold, are classed as 100% profit, so its currently a vicious circle for them.
Squad harmony is so often under-rated - just look at "relegated by Christmas" Luton, as an example of what happens when players are united. Chelsea are a team of individuals who just dont collectively care enough.
The clubs in a mess but their demise is not helped by releasing / selling so many quality youngsters who didn't 'make the grade' ...Mo Salah, De Bruyne, Declan Rice, Tomori, Guehi, Nathan Ake. and many more. United are in a bit of a mess too, but at least they always give youth a go with Garnacho & Mainoo the cream of their current ex academy first team players. Its part of their identity.
Chelsea seem to have no identity now , even if the previous identity was rooted in a loadamoney Russian crook.
Chelsea seem to have no identity now , even if the previous identity was rooted in a loadamoney Russian crook.
The most unlikely result in that lot is Chelsea beating Villa.
Last edited:
The list of players that they've let go is extraordinary isn't it? Just think what they could have done with just Salah and De Bruyne.
I know it's childish but it is one of life's great pleasures to see a few of the touristy clubs getting themselves into a mess.
Basically, the transfer technique of anyone newly playing Football Manager on PC, but in this case they'll actually feel some real life effects!
Jonathon Wilson of the Guardian has written an excellent piece on Chelsea's woes....
www.theguardian.com
With mounting long-term financial concerns, there is no quick fix in sight for the club’s on-field struggles
You don’t see much of Todd Boehly these days. In the first weeks after he fronted the Clearlake takeover of Chelsea, he was a regular presence, telling European football what it could learn from US sport, proudly announcing his disruptive intent. Which is a shame: it would be good to know exactly where spending $1bn to transform a Champions League-winning side into one that sits 11th in the Premier League fits into his master plan.
There had been a thought around the turn of the year that things might be falling into place for Chelsea. They reached the Carabao Cup final and won three league games in a row to haul themselves into the top half of the table. Maybe Mauricio Pochettino was at last starting to find some order amid a chaotic squad. The last two games have obliterated that idea.
Having let in four while being comprehensively outplayed at Liverpool in midweek, they leaked another four at home to Wolves on Sunday. The former may be understandable, the latter is not. This wasn’t a team having four chances and taking them all; Wolves were much the better side and could easily have won by more. Chelsea were a shambles, players arguing among themselves as sections of the crowd called for Pochettino to be sacked and wistfully sung about the Roman Abramovich era.
The problems go far deeper than results. In the short term, Chelsea’s activities since the Boehly/Clearlake takeover are not a problem. The football finance expert Swiss Ramble noted in August that the transfer activity since the takeover was exactly neutral, with £143m in wages plus £116m in amortisation from purchases offset by a £192m reduction in wages and £62m in amortisation from sales. Even better, there was a £215m profit in terms of player sales.
Which looks excellent – in the short term. But Chelsea’s signings have committed them to £1.9bn of future spending. And this is a club that has posted operating losses in each of the past 10 seasons, a picture that has been getting worse in the past four years. In 2021-22 operating losses were £224m, bringing total losses over the decade to £944m. That has to an extent been balanced by £706m in player sales.
Taking into account the reduction in wage bill, and projecting other income and outgoings for this season, Swiss Ramble calculated estimated losses of £131.6m for 2023-24 to go with £70.2m last season and £121.4m the season before that. There are allowable deductions for ‘healthy’ spending such as that on the academy and women’s team, which can be estimated at £40m or so a season. Which, when the extra allowances for losses in the Covid season are taken into account, kept Chelsea just above the threshold of £105m in losses for the three-year period up to 2022-23.
For 2023-24, though, they would appear to be in big trouble, with Swiss Ramble estimating their losses for the three-year assessment period at £201m – and that was on an assumption they would finish sixth, which now looks extremely optimistic.
Uefa’s regulations are not immediately relevant but it is changing its FFP model to a cost control ratio, by which player wages, transfers and agent fees will by 2025 be limited to 70% of revenue and profit on player sales. At the moment, Chelsea’s is around 90%.
Chelsea are already being investigated for possible historical breaches of FFP in the Abramovich era, which could lead to points deductions (or worse) that would make their job even harder going forward. And it is extremely hard already. They just about kept their heads above water in the three-year period to last June but that was with exceptional sales. They don’t have many academy products or fully amortised players left. Say they sold Moisés Caicedo next summer for the £100m they paid for him: yes, they would reduce costs from his amortisation and wages, but his eight-year contract means the profit would only be £100m minus his book value which, with seven of the eight years of his contract remaining would be £87.5m: that is, £12.5m.
To keep making the sort of profits that have sustained them over the past decade will be extremely difficult. Those academy products who remain, the likes of Conor Gallagher and Reece James, are likely to find the owners extremely eager to listen to offers. And of course this is the reverse of standard footballing wisdom, that clubs benefit from having a core of players brought up in the ways of club, the John Terry and Frank Lampard figures, who have an attachment to the institution that goes beyond salary.
Perhaps Chelsea will be granted additional dispensation for losses suffered after the imposition of sanctions on Abramovich, although there are no guarantees, but with the likelihood of no Champions League football, it’s hard to see how revenues will rise significantly next season. With 12 players on contracts of eight years or more, the amortisation trick looks increasingly like an albatross.
This is a club in a terrible mess and the only people who can really be blamed are the disruptive new owners.
On a different issue, Boehly has recruited Todd Kline from Spurs briefed to improve their sponsorship income. I can't see that being a game changer either. Kline's job at Spurs was to find a Naming Rights sponsor, but not finding any worthwhile options it seems as though Levy is now happy to keep the title as 'Tottenham Hotspur Stadium' and let the global brand get more publicity through NFL, concerts, and F1 Karting at the stadium.
Disruptive owners, managerial questions and financial concerns: Chelsea are a $1bn mess
With mounting long-term financial concerns, there is no quick fix in sight for the club’s on-field struggles
www.theguardian.com
With mounting long-term financial concerns, there is no quick fix in sight for the club’s on-field struggles
You don’t see much of Todd Boehly these days. In the first weeks after he fronted the Clearlake takeover of Chelsea, he was a regular presence, telling European football what it could learn from US sport, proudly announcing his disruptive intent. Which is a shame: it would be good to know exactly where spending $1bn to transform a Champions League-winning side into one that sits 11th in the Premier League fits into his master plan.
There had been a thought around the turn of the year that things might be falling into place for Chelsea. They reached the Carabao Cup final and won three league games in a row to haul themselves into the top half of the table. Maybe Mauricio Pochettino was at last starting to find some order amid a chaotic squad. The last two games have obliterated that idea.
Having let in four while being comprehensively outplayed at Liverpool in midweek, they leaked another four at home to Wolves on Sunday. The former may be understandable, the latter is not. This wasn’t a team having four chances and taking them all; Wolves were much the better side and could easily have won by more. Chelsea were a shambles, players arguing among themselves as sections of the crowd called for Pochettino to be sacked and wistfully sung about the Roman Abramovich era.
The problems go far deeper than results. In the short term, Chelsea’s activities since the Boehly/Clearlake takeover are not a problem. The football finance expert Swiss Ramble noted in August that the transfer activity since the takeover was exactly neutral, with £143m in wages plus £116m in amortisation from purchases offset by a £192m reduction in wages and £62m in amortisation from sales. Even better, there was a £215m profit in terms of player sales.
Which looks excellent – in the short term. But Chelsea’s signings have committed them to £1.9bn of future spending. And this is a club that has posted operating losses in each of the past 10 seasons, a picture that has been getting worse in the past four years. In 2021-22 operating losses were £224m, bringing total losses over the decade to £944m. That has to an extent been balanced by £706m in player sales.
Taking into account the reduction in wage bill, and projecting other income and outgoings for this season, Swiss Ramble calculated estimated losses of £131.6m for 2023-24 to go with £70.2m last season and £121.4m the season before that. There are allowable deductions for ‘healthy’ spending such as that on the academy and women’s team, which can be estimated at £40m or so a season. Which, when the extra allowances for losses in the Covid season are taken into account, kept Chelsea just above the threshold of £105m in losses for the three-year period up to 2022-23.
For 2023-24, though, they would appear to be in big trouble, with Swiss Ramble estimating their losses for the three-year assessment period at £201m – and that was on an assumption they would finish sixth, which now looks extremely optimistic.
Uefa’s regulations are not immediately relevant but it is changing its FFP model to a cost control ratio, by which player wages, transfers and agent fees will by 2025 be limited to 70% of revenue and profit on player sales. At the moment, Chelsea’s is around 90%.
Chelsea are already being investigated for possible historical breaches of FFP in the Abramovich era, which could lead to points deductions (or worse) that would make their job even harder going forward. And it is extremely hard already. They just about kept their heads above water in the three-year period to last June but that was with exceptional sales. They don’t have many academy products or fully amortised players left. Say they sold Moisés Caicedo next summer for the £100m they paid for him: yes, they would reduce costs from his amortisation and wages, but his eight-year contract means the profit would only be £100m minus his book value which, with seven of the eight years of his contract remaining would be £87.5m: that is, £12.5m.
To keep making the sort of profits that have sustained them over the past decade will be extremely difficult. Those academy products who remain, the likes of Conor Gallagher and Reece James, are likely to find the owners extremely eager to listen to offers. And of course this is the reverse of standard footballing wisdom, that clubs benefit from having a core of players brought up in the ways of club, the John Terry and Frank Lampard figures, who have an attachment to the institution that goes beyond salary.
Perhaps Chelsea will be granted additional dispensation for losses suffered after the imposition of sanctions on Abramovich, although there are no guarantees, but with the likelihood of no Champions League football, it’s hard to see how revenues will rise significantly next season. With 12 players on contracts of eight years or more, the amortisation trick looks increasingly like an albatross.
This is a club in a terrible mess and the only people who can really be blamed are the disruptive new owners.
On a different issue, Boehly has recruited Todd Kline from Spurs briefed to improve their sponsorship income. I can't see that being a game changer either. Kline's job at Spurs was to find a Naming Rights sponsor, but not finding any worthwhile options it seems as though Levy is now happy to keep the title as 'Tottenham Hotspur Stadium' and let the global brand get more publicity through NFL, concerts, and F1 Karting at the stadium.