Summer Transfer Thread 24/25
- Thread starter Bigpig
- Start date
Doesn’t seem to be just Sterling either, if club backs him then main objective now should be ensuring sterling and the others are gone if it’s possible.
Having so many unwanted players about can’t be good for the clubs atmosphere and morale for all etc.
HHmmm, Sterling has 2 options, one is to just sit and get paid a load and essentially mean Chelsea can't cash him in and use that for another player...or accept a move and allow Chelsea the ability to buy another player. Time to see what he chooses.
As for Chelsea and their endless pot of cash, I was told if they sell a player for £40m that puts £40m in a pot, you then could (potentially) use that for a player that costs 8x£40m over an 8 year period...so £320m, say £10m py on wages and £100m on the player is 'only' £180m, £180/8 = £22.5m so some change left. Not sure I agree with the logic, but not sure I can figure out how else they can be doing it...and eventually they must hit a wall surely?
As for Chelsea and their endless pot of cash, I was told if they sell a player for £40m that puts £40m in a pot, you then could (potentially) use that for a player that costs 8x£40m over an 8 year period...so £320m, say £10m py on wages and £100m on the player is 'only' £180m, £180/8 = £22.5m so some change left. Not sure I agree with the logic, but not sure I can figure out how else they can be doing it...and eventually they must hit a wall surely?
Last edited:
no, it doesn't exactly work that way. It's now capped to 5 years after their shenanigans last summer, plus what you get for a player needs to be amortized based on their fee to chelsea / length of contract. The only way to get the full whack is end of contract / academy players.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 3,918
Yeh, I wouldn’t say he was great but he was one of their better players last year. It says more about the team than anything though.
Yup, they changed it after the 8 year deals they started doing.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's what I thought too. So, how do you explain their math? Because surely it's not possible to have spent all they have in the last couple of seasons and stay within the rules?
Because they're banking on inflation continuing like it has in football. So they start to sell off the countless young and (hopefully for them) talented players they have for a profit (based purely on inflation they 'should' make a profit even if their actual worth doesn't increase) + whatever they've already accounted for in amortisation costs to fund their existing annual commitments.
Last edited:
They have spent well over 1 billion on players in the last 2 seasons. Lets say that's roughly 180 mil per season amortised over 5 years, they aren't pulling anywhere like that sort of money in. Just imagine their wage bill at the moment too.
Even if the transfer market does increase a bit over the next couple of years, unwanted players still remain unwanted and if a player hasn't played in 1 - 3 season for example then it's unlikely they'll turn any sort of profit on him. Chelsea are in a situation where they have to sell, everyone knows they have to, so should be in a good bargaining position and if they can't sell they are stuck with the players on ridiculous long contracts.
I just can't see any way this turns out positively.
Even if the transfer market does increase a bit over the next couple of years, unwanted players still remain unwanted and if a player hasn't played in 1 - 3 season for example then it's unlikely they'll turn any sort of profit on him. Chelsea are in a situation where they have to sell, everyone knows they have to, so should be in a good bargaining position and if they can't sell they are stuck with the players on ridiculous long contracts.
I just can't see any way this turns out positively.
Last edited:
Not sure how a player who cost them £80m and doesn't play increases in value, especially when people buying know it will just fund more of this ridiculousness.
Let's face it, Chelsea are (yet again) trying to artificially raise the value of players to suit their gains, issue this time is everyone has to operate within FFP (or whatever the latest version is) and therefore it won't happen (IMHO), because less is being spent, not more.
Caporegime
They paid top dollar for these players mostly due to their age and for their potential. The longer time goes on, as they get older, both of these will fade. So clubs won't be paying the same money or more for their age, and potential will become potential wasted as the potential was never proven.
It's a bit like Felix cost £120mil and now half that now.
It's a bit like Felix cost £120mil and now half that now.
Last edited:
Because inflation is out of control within football. Not so long ago spending £30m on a player was unheard of outside the massive clubs, now it's almost routine.
A player can be 'worth' no more but still cost significantly more, if that makes sense?
I'm not saying that I agree with their approach or think it will work, but it must be their thinking.
Now I'm in agreement that what Chelsea are doing is incredibly risky and a bit mad but some of this just isn't true. These players, one way or another will play. They'll get loaned out and sooner or later somebody will buy them. Yes there will be the odd one that completely bombs out and is released but most players will eventually move on and Chelsea will recoup at least some of the money they spent on them. You say that they're not pulling in close to £180m but they kind of are. Rough calculations, Chelsea have sold around £350m worth of players this and last season. Now obviously that won't be all profit (this seasons looks to be though) but it will mostly be profit.
That said they're losing money at an unsustainable rate. The below from Swiss Ramble shows that for the 21/22 and 22/23 seasons Chelsea lost over £200m (this is before allowable losses for the PSR calculation), even after £180m worth of profit on player sales and £75m of property fiddles.
As above, they've made a lot of profit on player sales in the last 12 months and it's reported that they have or will sell their women's team to themselves to improve their finances too. They're running out of things to sell now* and their spending will have to cut back moving forwards.
*It should be noted that it's not 100% that the PL have accepted Chelsea's valuation on their hotel sale too.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Does that profit/loss show £121.3 mil loss in 2022 and £89.8 mil loss in 2023?
Unless they made or going to make a massive profit in 2021 or in 2025 to keep it below losing £105mil over 3 years, are they not going to be in deep poop?
Unless they made or going to make a massive profit in 2021 or in 2025 to keep it below losing £105mil over 3 years, are they not going to be in deep poop?
Those are the figures for the 21/22 season and 22/23 seasons, yes. You have to remember that headline profit/loss figures don't mean a huge amount when it comes to PSR as there's lots of allowable deductions. Below is SwissRamble's estimates for Chelsea's 3 year PSR cycle to the end of the 22/23 season. Chelsea's accounts for last season won't be out for another 7-8 months so we won't know if (and therefore how) they met PSR for the 3 year cycle to the end of the 23/24 season however SwissRamble estimates that Chelsea will have had to breakeven last season. He does mention that doing that would be a big challenge but as I wrote above, there are talks that Chelsea have sold their women's team to themselves that might help with that and who knows what other tricks they may have played.
Caporegime
If that is correct they are flying very close to the sun already. With 2020/21 out of the way for the accounting in the 3 years, they are going to need to make a profit of £36mil to keep it under the limit.