Champions League Contention

[Risso]

I seem to remember it was an idea put to the board by Dave Ismay for Doug's 70th birthday.

[Smithy]

Penny pinching is bollocks when you've got Chelsea needing to sell £100m by 30th June, with their other shady financials to come home to roost, Forest to be docked points, Everton docked points and be docked them again. Man City to be punished back to the 19th century. This is football in 2024.

I’m sure I just read somewhere that Chelsea can spend £200m this summer before any sales.

Chelsea might have some money to spend, but only because they have a huge commercial operation. I'd be amazed if it was £200m, but given how their spending in the last 18 months has all been on crazy long contracts (before the loophole was closed), I suspect their FFP position isn't that precarious. It's just their transfer business is going to start at about -£80m every year for the next 7 or 8 years.  If they're making enough money to absorb that, lucky them.

They lost £121.3m in their last set of accounts and are desperately trying to flog home grown players.

I'm not entirely sure how it works, but I thought the FFP calculation isn't tied "directly" to your operating income?  You can lose quite a lot of money in the accounts but be okay in FFP terms if your player costs are amortised over really long periods, which is what Chelsea have done?  Similarly you could make a good operating profit but still be screwed on FFP based on players you signed five years ago?

My understanding is that Chelsea is a ticking timebomb for the next 6 or 7 years, but that that they don't have huge "immediate" FFP issues because although they spent loads in the last 18 months, it's spread over 7 or 8 years, whereas they've profited from the sales of players like Mount and Loftus-Cheek to the tune of £100m "immediately".  So despite spending over half a billion quid, their "net" FFP spend on players in the last year or so won't be that high.

They've maxed out their credit card using a loophole that's now been closed, and they'll start every transfer window about -£80m for the foreseeable future, but I don't think they're in big trouble... yet.  Another year outside Europe, and the knock-on effect that might have on commercial revenue, and sure, they could be in big trouble.  But I think they can still spend a bit this year (unfortunately).  And if they DO sell someone like Reece James or Gallagher, they'll have even more wiggle room in the coming window.

[Ads]

You can lose £5m a year or £15m over 3 as a club or you can lose £35m a year or £105m over a 3 year period if the owner will put equity in to the tune of £90m. From what I've read they have until 30th June to make £100m or they breach FFP/PSR. With the Euros too, that's a tall order. Nobody in England is going to help and the money is only in England. They're proper fucked.

[Smithy]

You can lose £5m a year or £15m over 3 as a club or you can lose £35m a year or £105m over a 3 year period if the owner will put equity in to the tune of £90m. From what I've read they have until 30th June to make £100m or they breach FFP/PSR. With the Euros too, that's a tall order. Nobody in England is going to help and the money is only in England. They're proper fucked.

I really hope that's true! But I fear the FFP/PSR allowable losses are very different from the "operating losses".  Which is the main argument Everton are making, in that they claim some of their operating losses shouldn't be included in the FFP calculation (when they clearly should).

I really hope I'm wrong, but I fear Chelsea's position isn't as bad as some believe (at least not this year, anyway).  It would be great news is they were forced into a fire sale in May June and no one was willing to give them close to market value for anyone they want to sell :-)

[Ads]

I cant find the Ben Jacobs article that's been quoted saying they can spend £200m. Man City cant and they don't make a loss (we'll we know why they don't...115).

[chrisw1]

I seem to remember it was an idea put to the board by Dave Ismay for Doug's 70th birthday.

I think after Doug had told him he'd really like it.  Then the Board (including Ellis JR) voted on it as a 'surprise.'  The pricks.

[Smithy]

I seem to remember it was an idea put to the board by Dave Ismay for Doug's 70th birthday.

I think after Doug had told him he'd really like it.  Then the Board (including Ellis JR) voted on it as a 'surprise.'  The pricks.

It would be rather ironic if changing the name of "his" stand brought more money into the club than ever came from his pockets.

[PaulWinch again]

You can lose £5m a year or £15m over 3 as a club or you can lose £35m a year or £105m over a 3 year period if the owner will put equity in to the tune of £90m. From what I've read they have until 30th June to make £100m or they breach FFP/PSR. With the Euros too, that's a tall order. Nobody in England is going to help and the money is only in England. They're proper fucked.

I really hope that's true! But I fear the FFP/PSR allowable losses are very different from the "operating losses".  Which is the main argument Everton are making, in that they claim some of their operating losses shouldn't be included in the FFP calculation (when they clearly should).

I really hope I'm wrong, but I fear Chelsea's position isn't as bad as some believe (at least not this year, anyway).  It would be great news is they were forced into a fire sale in May June and no one was willing to give them close to market value for anyone they want to sell :-)

Chelsea medium/long-term are in big trouble.

[paul_e]

You can lose £5m a year or £15m over 3 as a club or you can lose £35m a year or £105m over a 3 year period if the owner will put equity in to the tune of £90m. From what I've read they have until 30th June to make £100m or they breach FFP/PSR. With the Euros too, that's a tall order. Nobody in England is going to help and the money is only in England. They're proper fucked.

I really hope that's true! But I fear the FFP/PSR allowable losses are very different from the "operating losses".  Which is the main argument Everton are making, in that they claim some of their operating losses shouldn't be included in the FFP calculation (when they clearly should).

I really hope I'm wrong, but I fear Chelsea's position isn't as bad as some believe (at least not this year, anyway).  It would be great news is they were forced into a fire sale in May June and no one was willing to give them close to market value for anyone they want to sell :-)

The reason some losses are ring-fenced is because not doing it runs the risk of forcing clubs to choose between things like stadium maintenance and a new striker and they'd almost certainly go for the latter in most cases.

[Demitri_C]

Well if the ellis stand isnt touched it might be the north if they do eventually expand the stadium

Its just one revenue stream we could use. Rather that than re naming the stadium. It should always be villa park

[PaulWinch again]

With the Carlos news we just have to work out a way of grinding some results out for the foreseeable.

[Ads]

With the Carlos news we just have to work out a way of grinding some results out for the foreseeable.

Why? Can't we replace him with the much better Torres and just hammer sides?

[PaulWinch again]

With the Carlos news we just have to work out a way of grinding some results out for the foreseeable.

Why? Can't we replace him with the much better Torres and just hammer sides?

I would suspect Torres and Lenglet are very much left sided centre backs, although I might be wrong.

[Ads]

So is Carlos.

[paul_e]

I'm not so worried about Lenglet and Torres playing together but rather if Torres will be able to play a full game.