Chelsea

[SB]

And they don't have European football this season, nor, bizarrely, a front of shirt sponsor.

I have no idea where this will end, but if I was a Chelsea supporter, I'd be pretty concerned.

No problem for most of them when Arsenal are doing so well. Just dye the blue flags red

[Norbs]

Funny you should say that. I went to Bromley v Barnet on Saturday and there were at least 5 Arsenal shirt wearing tits in the ground, adults too

Had never seen one before that,.and it's not an Arsenal area

[dom9]

Funny you should say that. I went to Bromley v Barnet on Saturday and there were at least 5 Arsenal shirt wearing tits in the ground, adults too

Had never seen one before that,.and it's not an Arsenal area

Barnet fans? That is prime Arsenal territory.

[SB]

Funny you should say that. I went to Bromley v Barnet on Saturday and there were at least 5 Arsenal shirt wearing tits in the ground, adults too

Had never seen one before that,.and it's not an Arsenal area

Hope they had flags too

[Norbs]

Barnet fans? That is prime Arsenal territory.

Bromley fans, or at least they were in and around the home end. I didn't consider they might be rogue

[Mark79]

Chelsea's spending is now measured against entire leagues.
[ame]https://twitter.com/TMuk_news/status/1691095475674660864[/ame]

[shanks69]

It's now official caicedo has signed.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

[dom9]

I'm still puzzled why those two players chose Chelsea instead of us.

I'm guessing it's down to money, for both them and their agents. With no European football, I can't think of another reason.

Their wage bill must be something else, on top of their transfer spending.

And still no shirt sponsor.

It's completely baffling.

[Phoenix07]

I'm still puzzled why those two players chose Chelsea instead of us.

I'm guessing it's down to money, for both them and their agents. With no European football, I can't think of another reason.

Their wage bill must be something else, on top of their transfer spending.

And still no shirt sponsor.

It's completely baffling.

Large wages and long contracts. Basically, they're set for the prime period of their footballing careers. They can be utter garbage, and Chelsea would struggle to shift them. They don't have to worry about poor form, or being shifted by future managers. They're locked in for the long haul, regardless.

[S-RED]

agents getting astrominical payments helps; these are young kids & rely on agents to do the right thing, not the £££ thing

[dom9]

Never mind the middle eastern states, Chelsea have single handedly skewed the transfer market in the past 15 months.

[RedReet]

I'm still puzzled why those two players chose Chelsea instead of us.

I'm guessing it's down to money, for both them and their agents. With no European football, I can't think of another reason.

Their wage bill must be something else, on top of their transfer spending.

And still no shirt sponsor.

It's completely baffling.

I think when Chelsea bid over £50m for Lavia we bowed out, so the player didn't necessarily turn us down.

Caciedo I probably think the higher wages, agent fees, the fact that he already agreed a deal with Chelsea, the London factor etc all don't matter, he's just a wee dick.

[Deano]

I'm still puzzled why those two players chose Chelsea instead of us.

I'm guessing it's down to money, for both them and their agents. With no European football, I can't think of another reason.

Their wage bill must be something else, on top of their transfer spending.

And still no shirt sponsor.

It's completely baffling.

On Cacideio, agent speak IMO, get enough people in your ear and you are turned, Brighton warned him about previously, Lavia is a strange one, Obv gonna be second fiddle but if someone offers you 8-10 year contract at £1ook plus, you'd be daft not to.

[Irishnev]

agents getting astrominical payments helps; these are young kids & rely on agents to do the right thing, not the £££ thing

We used to be the leading agent payers under Edwards - in the modern world you have to grease wheels

[Cormack74]

This is hardly surprising as we all know, but I had no idea about off-setting allowances via amortisation.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/08/14/chelsea-transfer-news-caicedo-fernandez-lavia-ffp-rules/

Chelsea’s £115 million British record deal for Moises Caicedo all-but-guarantees further player outgoings to ensure the club can qualify for Europe next season.

The club was already facing a projected £100m black hole in financial fair play financing from missed Champions League broadcasting and ticketing revenue this season.

Efforts to balance the books remain within reach, insiders maintain, largely due to Chelsea’s successful academy. Potential departures of homegrown players Trevoh Chalobah and Conor Gallagher would add to the pure £75 million profit the club can already record on Mason Mount and Ruben Loftus-Cheek.

However, the Caicedo signing remains a particularly expensive deal to offset against the Uefa bean counters despite his eight-year contract.

In June, the governing body closed a loophole that previously allowed Todd Boehly and Co to spread their big spending across long-term contracts handed to new signings.

Caicedo’s initial eight-year contract is just six months shy of the record eight-and-a-half year deal handed to Ukraine winger Mykhailo Mudryk in January, although it does have the option of an additional 12 months.

Under amortisation - the process of gradually writing off the initial cost of a player - Chelsea could list the £80 million Mudryk fee as £9.41 million per year.

But Caicedo is much more expensive under the new rules, which would be recorded at a minimum £23 million per year as amortisation is now limited at five years.

The Uefa rule only comes into effect should the club qualify for Europe, ensuring Chelsea - having finished 12th last season - have extra time to prepare.
However, after a summer where the club restored some balance on the previous season’s £585 million of investment, further departures will be needed on top of the current tally of 12, recouping an estimated £215 million in fees.

Kieran Maguire, a lecturer in football finance at Liverpool University, suggests a €60 million (£51.64 million) financial fair play loss over three years, as well as the new 70 per cent wages to income calculation, remains within reach.

“With all the concentration on the Chelsea in-door, people are ignoring the out-door which indicates player sales of £1.2 billion since 2013-14,” he calculates.

But further player outgoings are inevitable, experts add. Swift approval from the Premier League for a proposed £40 million-plus shirt sponsorship company with start-up company Infinite Management is also required.

Stephen Taylor Heath, head of sports law at JMW Solicitors, said: “Chelsea’s deal for Moises Caicedo may not necessarily fall foul of the new Uefa rules on amortisation as the contract length and period over which the transfer fee can be paid are two separate things. The new Uefa rule outlines that a fee can only be spread over a maximum of five years, so there would only be an FFP breach if Chelsea tried to apportion the cost across a period longer than the timeframe allowed in order to be on the right side of Uefa’s new financial sustainability regulations. These laws include a squad cost rule which incorporates the value of the player as part of the squad for the purpose of the regulations and needs to be assessed by reference to the new rule.”

Fifa has been pushing for contracts to be within five years, but the world governing body accepts longer contracts are permitted if domestic law allows it.

“A question may be asked as to why an eight-year deal is being agreed if amortisation is only possible over five seasons, but that may be due to market forces and other teams being interested in the player,” adds Taylor Heath