Summer Transfer Thread 24/25

So does anyone have any logic to what Chelsea are doing? They are just amassing players on huge long contracts pretty much rendering them un-sellable, purely to protect their assets? They have far too many assets to use and surely need to sell to not be in breach of FFP. I just can't see the business or football sense in what they are doing.
 
CliffyG said:
So does anyone have any logic to what Chelsea are doing? They are just amassing players on huge long contracts pretty much rendering them un-sellable, purely to protect their assets? They have far too many assets to use and surely need to sell to not be in breach of FFP. I just can't see the business or football sense in what they are doing.
Click to expand...

I think it’s something they do in baseball. Decade long contracts to stop other clubs signing them.

It’s just bonkers though. They’ve just got rid of one of their best players last year to sign someone who basically failed at the club the season before.
 
BaZ87 said:
Nobody is going to get excited about signing somebody, potentially, for 2 years down the line but it doesn't mean it's not a good deal.
Click to expand...
Based on what I saw during the Euros I agree its a good deal, just one that generates a lot of meh in me. Slot could be gone in 2 years time so currently what perks my interest is what improves Slots team
 
Chelsea have all these players and probably on high wage which many clubs won’t pay same or even pay half of what Chelsea paid

There gonna be stuck unless they some how terminate contracts id imagine
 
Reuben klang said:
I think it’s something they do in baseball. Decade long contracts to stop other clubs signing them.

It’s just bonkers though. They’ve just got rid of one of their best players last year to sign someone who basically failed at the club the season before.
Click to expand...

My memory is failing me, who have they sold recently who was one of their best last season?
 
Tombstone said:
Based on what I saw during the Euros I agree its a good deal, just one that generates a lot of meh in me. Slot could be gone in 2 years time so currently what perks my interest is what improves Slots team
Click to expand...
Which is why the club will try to take a long term view to the signings they make. I've no doubt the club could sign a DM (for example) that will improve the side in the short term but they won't make that signing if they believe it will be to the detriment of the club in the medium to long term.
CliffyG said:
So does anyone have any logic to what Chelsea are doing? They are just amassing players on huge long contracts pretty much rendering them un-sellable, purely to protect their assets? They have far too many assets to use and surely need to sell to not be in breach of FFP. I just can't see the business or football sense in what they are doing.
Click to expand...
Providing they can generate enough profit selling the likes of Gallagher each season then they will be able to comply with FFP. As for why Chelsea are behaving like this, there's two schools of thought. First off we have to remember that Boehly is just the face of Chelsea's ownership, the majority owner is a private equity firm that aren't in it to lose money. Either Chelsea are gambling on the fact that revenues are going to explode in the coming years and as a result transfer fees and wages will too, and Chelsea with their 100 man squad on 8 year deals will be laughing*. Or they're simply throwing as much money as needed at it to get Chelsea back into the CL on a regular basis - the hundreds of millions in losses on these transfers are insignificant compared to the potential billions in difference to the value of the club.

*I think they're a bit naive in believing that long contracts will protect him from increased wages. Undoubtedly Chelsea had a stronger bargaining position than they might have otherwise but we've seen with Palmer that if a player performs well, you're going to struggle to hold them to their original contract. And equally, if a player bombs you're going to struggle to move them on too.
 
BaZ87 said:
Which is why the club will try to take a long term view to the signings they make. I've no doubt the club could sign a DM (for example) that will improve the side in the short term but they won't make that signing if they believe it will be to the detriment of the club in the medium to long term.

Providing they can generate enough profit selling the likes of Gallagher each season then they will be able to comply with FFP. As for why Chelsea are behaving like this, there's two schools of thought. First off we have to remember that Boehly is just the face of Chelsea's ownership, the majority owner is a private equity firm that aren't in it to lose money. Either Chelsea are gambling on the fact that revenues are going to explode in the coming years and as a result transfer fees and wages will too, and Chelsea with their 100 man squad on 8 year deals will be laughing*. Or they're simply throwing as much money as needed at it to get Chelsea back into the CL on a regular basis - the hundreds of millions in losses on these transfers are insignificant compared to the potential billions in difference to the value of the club.

*I think they're a bit naive in believing that long contracts will protect him from increased wages. Undoubtedly Chelsea had a stronger bargaining position than they might have otherwise but we've seen with Palmer that if a player performs well, you're going to struggle to hold them to their original contract. And equally, if a player bombs you're going to struggle to move them on too.
Click to expand...

But there aren't more Gallaghers, even if there were they wouldn't play, as you said. So their business model will rely on them selling the overpriced people no one else wanted who are on huge contracts. Just seems madness to me.
 
CliffyG said:
But there aren't more Gallaghers, even if there were they wouldn't play, as you said. So their business model will rely on them selling the overpriced people no one else wanted who are on huge contracts. Just seems madness to me.
Click to expand...
As I touched on, Chelsea are owned by a private equity firm - this spending isn't going to continue forever. They're spending to get themselves into a certain position - whether that's where they have a huge stock of players that are now worth more than they paid (in the case of revenues exploding) or simply to get themselves back at the top table. Once they've reached the point they need to reach then their spending will cut back. It has to. Their amortisation bill (the running cost of all their transfer fees) is reportedly approaching £300m now - for context Liverpool's for 22/23 was just over £100m. That's just not sustainable and as you say, they will eventually run out of players to sell to balance out their expenses.

Until then though they'll keep juggling things the best they can and they'll find somebody to sell to balance the books. You say there's no more Gallaghers but they've got a huge stock of talented young players farmed out on loan around Europe. They sold Maatsen and Hall this summer for a combined £65m despite either barely kicking a ball for them. Sooner or later somebody will pay £20-30m for Broja and Chalobah and if push comes to shove, they'll sell Colwill. How long they can maintain things, I've no idea though.
 
fez said:
I don't know. I reckon Sterling will have a good couple of years at Chelsea unless they want to pay him off.
Click to expand...
Manager made it clear he isn’t gonna touch him so it will likely be Chelsea pay him off or some club will pay the wage/transfer required but I suspect the latter be harder to do as he has a high wage

Saudi club may go in for him but I don’t see a Spanish or German team paying him what he earns now if he leaves league out right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom