January Transfer Window 2010/2011 Season Rumours/Signings

Surely Chelsea's account won't be from right now? How could they include £50m of a deal that isn't even 100% certain yet? Not to mention that the tax year isn't up.

Surely those figures are for 09/10?
 
Weebull said:
Surely Chelsea's account won't be from right now? How could they include £50m of a deal that isn't even 100% certain yet? Not to mention that the tax year isn't up.

Surely those figures are for 09/10?
Click to expand...

no those figures won't show the torres or suarez deals, we'll probably see them on their half year results.


*that won't mean we'll see a straight 75million more loss though as transfer fees have to be amortized over the duration of the contract signed (even if you pay cash up front) so you'd get say a £15million increase in losses + wages etc of course. Wages are Chelsea's real problem as far as I can see, that's why squad trimming will probably be required.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
It looks specifically at football inflation, which I believe they've calculated based upon the amount of money being spent each year.

Some years the inflation is positive, some years it's negative. For example the £8m+ we paid for Collymore was less than the £7m we solf him for a few years later.

edit: Look at Berbatov's fee too. His true fee is actually less than what Utd paid.
Click to expand...

When I said "in real terms" I meant in terms of actual currency inflation, not this 'football inflation'. One important thing to remember about Rio as well is that the actual figure MU ended up paying is considerably less than the headline figure typically quoted because they negotiated with Leeds to pay out some of the bolt-ons early at a significant discount. It wouldn't surprise me if the total fee paid ended up under £28m.

Same goes for Walcott as well, all we hear is "£12m" but it was actually £5m +£0.1m per England cap (max 20) and £1m per x Premiership starts (max £5m). And then because Saints were going under Arsenal got a hefty discount for early payment, again, wouldn't surprise me if the total fee paid was well under £10m.

If fact the whole adjusting for inflation thing is a bit flawed anyway because nowadays most deals are staggered over a period of time, so you'd have to factor in the inflation based on what amount of money was paid in what year, and the whole thing gets a bit messy.
 
Last edited:
With no decent midfielders coming in, Pool really need to recall Aquilaini from Juve. We are badly in need of a spark, and he might just be the man to provide it.
 
Weebull said:
Surely Chelsea's account won't be from right now? How could they include £50m of a deal that isn't even 100% certain yet? Not to mention that the tax year isn't up.

Surely those figures are for 09/10?
Click to expand...

yes, wait, I'm not sure what you're talking about, the 70mil transfer fee's which make up most of the 68mil losses are OLD transfers.

I can't remember the Essien deal for instance, but say he signed 3 years ago for 30million, the 30million isn't all on the books for that year, assuming he signed say a 5 year deal it would be 30mil/5=6mil on the books every year for 5 years.

The current 70mil is the pieces of various transfers over the past several seasons.

In a couple years the only ones left to be taken into account will be, Torres, Zhirkov, Ramires, and thats about it. Zhirkov was silly money wasn't he(for him), 18mil for Ramires, Torres at 50mil, will end up as 10mil a year for Torres, 3mil for Ramires and 4-5mil for Zhirkov, assuming everyone was on a 5 year deal. So it would add roughly 18mil a year into the losses numbers for Chelsea's books.
 
HangTime said:
Same goes for Walcott as well, all we hear is "£12m" but it was actually £5m +£0.1m per England cap (max 20) and £1m per x Premiership starts (max £5m). And then because Saints were going under Arsenal got a hefty discount for early payment, again, wouldn't surprise me if the total fee paid was well under £10m.
Click to expand...

From what I understand we the total value of the transfer was just under 10m and we needed that money so badly (though selling any talented player to stay in business has left us in l1)

On the plus and blackpool fans in here? Apparently they've signed Jason Puncheon from us.... (who apparently has a personality similar to holoway)
 
He's now a blue he was a red – Torres! Torres!

He's left The Kop to join The Shed – Torres! Torres!

He used to go out on the rob,

But now he's got a proper job

Fernando Torres – Chelsea's new number nine!

They thought he'd always be a red – Torres! Torres!

You'll never walk alone he said - Torres! Torres!

They bought the lad from sunny Spain,

He scored a few then grew a brain

Fernando Torres – Chelsea's new number nine!
 
drunkenmaster said:
yes, wait, I'm not sure what you're talking about
Click to expand...
Excellent.

I meant that some of the people in this thread earlier were claiming that Chelsea's posted losses were including the fees for Torres and Luiz, be they amortised or whatever. When of course that would be silly, given that:

a) Neither deal is actually complete.
b) The accounts for these losses won't be to current date, they'll be for the last tax year or so.
 
DanH84 said:
no those figures won't show the torres or suarez deals, we'll probably see them on their half year results.


*that won't mean we'll see a straight 75million more loss though as transfer fees have to be amortized over the duration of the contract signed (even if you pay cash up front) so you'd get say a £15million increase in losses + wages etc of course. Wages are Chelsea's real problem as far as I can see, that's why squad trimming will probably be required.
Click to expand...

Why would Chelsea's books show Suarez results :p

Wages aren't the issue, again its 3 seasons till you have to be uner 45mil euros in losses. Right now, ignoring transfer fee's you're looking at about a 3mil profit, of the current numbers the only thing being added is around 20mil a year on Torres for wages and the fee spread over 5 years, a little under, depends on his wage(175-200k I've seen quoted). But most of that 70mil yearly transfer bill is on transfers that will long since be off the books in 3 years time, off the top of my head as I said I can only remember Ramires/Zhirvov that might still be on the books in 3 more seasons. Ivanovic/Anelka/Essien and some others will probably on in that number now, but won't be in 3 more seasons. it all somewhat depends on length of contract.

It does severely effect their chances to buy new players though, as wages + transfer fee's will have to not take them above the allowed losses.

Though as they replace players it will often be with highly paid older players(Drogba in a couple years, Lampard) with younger players on much lower salarys which will free up a lot of cash yearly to cover a few players.

After the rules come on the only clubs who will be able to afford 30-50mil players will be clubs who generate 20mil + a year actual profit, which will be, very very few clubs.

Transfer fee's in the next few years could come down pretty dramatically as top clubs simply can't afford it.
 
Weebull said:
Excellent.

I meant that some of the people in this thread earlier were claiming that Chelsea's posted losses were including the fees for Torres and Luiz, be they amortised or whatever. When of course that would be silly, given that:

a) Neither deal is actually complete.
b) The accounts for these losses won't be to current date, they'll be for the last tax year or so.
Click to expand...

AH, no he was suggesting when you mentioned positive cash that they also had debt which was roughly equal to the amount they'd be spending on Torres and Luiz today, as in they are 70mil in debt and spending 70mil more.

Not that those two would be the reason for them to go into 70mil debt for the season.
 
Youstolemyname said:
Being an Everton fan on transfer deadline day is like being in detention at school. You have to watch through the window while everyone else plays outside...
Click to expand...

:D

I've been furious over the years the way Moyes has wasted 6+ million on **** players without watching some old has been panic buy like there is a fuel crisis.

Yeah I'd much rather watch my team waste money for the sake of it rather than taking the money and come up with a proper long term strategy with a manager whose 'permanent'.

Or you could just let the caretaker panic buy and look at players not even fit to wear the shirt. You could have done so much more with the torres money if you didn't just think it had to be spent on the same day.
 
Tombstone said:
Going to have to be damned quick now, cant see us getting Young, Houllier was pretty damned firm this afternoon that Young was going nowhere
Click to expand...

He was? When he was asked if he was leaving all Houllier said was he's a very good player and there's liked by a lot of clubs or words to that effect.
 
I think the plan is to bring our wages down naturally as drogba, lampard and terry retire as they are all on very high wages. The younger players who replace them will be on a lot less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom