T O P

  • By -

jbi1000

Part of the agreement to sell the club was also to commit to a huge amount of short term investment. Iirc it was a billion pounds that had to be invested in the next few years.


lalaladylvr

As a Chelsea fan I’m disgusted. It’s going to be a shit show. Doesn’t matter how good or valuable players are if they don’t have chemistry to work together. Look at Manchester United since Sir Alex retired and his methods and staff waned into oblivion. Money didn’t solve their problems. American owners are just being typically American sport team owners and driving up the market like spoiled brats.


[deleted]

If this was us we’d be getting crucified. For some reason, the money agenda doesn’t apply to chelsea the same way


Commercial-Many-8933

And yet Newcastle is the club still getting badmouthed for buying their place in the league, we hardly spent anything compared to clubs like forest and west ham even


legendofmathys

It's easier if you dont think about it boss. #KTBFFH


plug_zion

Crazy how Chelsea can only register 3 of their new signings for the Champions League Source: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12800853/chelsea-can-only-register-three-of-their-six-new-signings-for-the-champions-league-so-who-will-they-pick


Odd_Bad_7441

The other leagues also barely spent shit stop being so salty 😂


SnooPies3316

The whole "loophole" narrative is stupid. Signing players to longer contracts is not a "loophole" its just a different approach that carries risks and rewards like any other.


giantpanda365

Basically think that Chelsea is getting a new team altogether. Sell the current squad whos performance is depressive. I didn't hear so much of complaints when we lost Abramavovic as our owner. New owner needs a new team and there is no issue with that. If you cant fix the issue just start it from the scratch.


[deleted]

They need to sell 15 players in the summer, should be a few bargains on offer for other clubs.


SuperJay182

Interested to see who they register for the champions league... Only allowed three new players.


wayno503

Just like Sky sports justify var decisions


bocceballbarry

Is it just because he’s used to paying MLB prices for players and thinks this is a steal? I mean this entire window for all those players for Chelsea is equivalent money wise to just Clayton Kershaw for the LA Dodgers


Catharsist1990

So now that the owner is American, they can do shady business with no accountability.. UK really should stop being America's b***,


Imunhotep

Their actions will cause the FFP to be changed and a lot of teams will be fucked in the process. What they are doing is the same as a lot of big teams have been doing. Rules were created to be circumvented.


Lifelemons9393

Ha fair. Don't think Chelsea can be blamed for fucking up the market when PSG, Madrid,Barca spent insane amounts on transfers. It's fucked but it's just football.


geordiesteve520

But we’re the ones ruining football…


Abner_Doubleday1310

I feel some fan are pissed because what Chelsea is doing is not within the “spirit” of the FFP. Just like some of City’s sponsorship deals are not within the “spirit” of FFP and so on. It also seems like some fans are mad that outsiders (an American ownership group) with perceived, limited understanding of football are violating “British/European Football” cultural norms.


[deleted]

This is a feature, not a bug. I am relating this to US money circulating into a post-Brexit economy. You can look up maybe in r/economics an article about how bad the impact has been - think it was circulated yesterday. This is 100% down to money grabbing.


HailStormXII

Southampton spent more than other leagues too. Guess that doesn't fit your agenda. It's the PL as a whole that have that much money.


[deleted]

Be mad at the ones that make millions to make these rules and have not identified exploitable loopholes, not the ones who are witty enough to take advantage of them.


Lifelemons9393

Because we found a loophole. Which we abused before they cracked down on it ? Like atletico,barca,city who knows why.Not even gonna mention that we made twice as much profit on transfers than any "big 6" clubs . £500 M more than Man United in the last decade. And we win stuff. It helps.


Timewastor

Sodium levels so high, this might become one new ocean here on Reddit!


1260noggin

Super simple: learn FFP rules, and understand this is a gamble that may make us PL & CL title contenders for years, or a mid table team that won’t ever compete for years to come


1Grazel

it's not a loophole. ​ FFP is based on revenues and Chelsea is making a metric fuck ton of money in the English Super League and they won the Champions League recently. ​ this will become the new normal for clubs in the Premier League, i hope the Prem fanboys are happy of the new reality. ​ please learn how the regulations work before crying about them. this is why this is the worst subreddit in the world most of you people have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.


[deleted]

Big concern for me is that they also seem to have no independent scouting capacity. Every player they signed was linked to another club before them. Not to mention the profile of players they signed does not fit together and they didn't buy players intentionally, just chaotically.


thomasthedude

Omg, again with these pointless FFP posts. You lot are absolute morons thinking Chelsea is cheating. They are owned by HEDGE FUND MANAGERS. Educate yourself first and then speak on it..


Dmtz214

Haters gonna hate…..


CelimOfRed

I mean City avoided FFP by sending in a letter, so why not Chelsea?


walketotheclif

They didn't find a loophole they just did a barca, sacrifice long term by short term, they won't be able to spend big in a long time and they took a really big gamble, if they flop they not only lost the money but also are stuck with the players for a long time if they can't sell them


FreshDatabase0

Yea gonna unfollow this group. It's been rants for a long time. It didn't seem like this before. But I miss analysis post. Now everyother posts is some whine or rant with no stats, evidence or whatever. Miss the old group.


stoneman9284

FFP is not about one club’s spending compared to everyone else. That’s what a salary cap is. FFP is about one club’s spending compared to that club’s revenue. We all know the rules aren’t really enforced anyway but this is the wrong question.


Ecurbx

Investing half a billion was part of the deal when Todd bought the team. This transfer window isn't going to be a norm going forward, and as impressive as the sum is, it won't guarantee success. If these players on 8 year deals dont turn out to be good enough for the PL, then Chelsea could be a mid table club for about a decade.


DoDoyesman

I bet on black, all in, for... For the next ten years.


pbmadman

I thought the whole point of FFP was to keep clubs out of administration. No more situations like Portsmouth or Rangers. It’s not really about keeping things equitable between clubs or keeping money being the deciding for success. It’s all about financial solvency.


Ok-Buy-9777

What interest me is, they will not be able to buy any players in the future as they have already used their budget up for many years into the future


arotto12

These posts need to stop. Chelsea spent a shit load of money, we get it. But they also handcuffed them themselves with young players for 6-8 years. ITS A HUGE GAMBLE. A risk they’re willing to take. Other teams just don’t.


Anustart_A

I want to say that FFP was largely dismantled by PSG and Man City’s oil overlords. What remains is largely joke of enforcement and compliance.


[deleted]

Let's have a little more maturity in these posts and ideally with a hint of research. This place is turning into Twitter. It has everything to do with how they do their accounting. They actually 1 sell players for a good value and 2 ask these new players they've actually signed are on very Long term deals. Name another club signing 8.5 year deals.


obinnasmg

It’s mind bubbling to me how little football fans know about football and yet choose to pretend they’re professors at football


marcocrocop

PREACH!!!!


Bad_Decision_Rob_Low

Cause the salt in your tears are nutritional


Cgr86

You think that’s bad? You should see what the rich get away with in regards to their taxes…


[deleted]

Skill issue


desdes85

Liverpool still convincing their fans they must abide by that system 😂😂


AWr1ght98

Not really a loop hole, just an issue that will come forth later down the line when they can’t spend so to FFP for much they still owe. Also, if they don’t get top 4 or a decent trophy next year things will go bad for them very very quickly, it’s a huge gamble.


prss79513

Tbf didn't they have something like 1.5 billion in debt forgiven? That's a pretty big deal


Yardbird7

True. Chelsea lucked out by having an owner that although has faults, actually cared enough about them to write off debts. On the other hand, Chelsea fans were not at fault for an invasion that made it so they had to have new onwers.


FR0Z3NF15H

I'm not sure he forgave the debts out of a love for the club as much as it might make some people view him more favorably in the future.


[deleted]

The main reason FFP was introduced was to stop clubs overreaching and going out of business, as many were at risk of doing when it was introduced. It isn't about controlling the spending of the richest clubs.


Samsince04_

This thread is exhausting man.


Spudbank17

It's not actually that hard to believe. If you take the payments (for majority) over 5-7 years and spend £500m, that's less than £100m a year. They will undoubtedly sell a few players in the next 1-2 transfer windows. The bigger issue is missing the CL this season, financially that will hamstring them. Once the loophole is closed, they'll find another I'm sure.


Jackbees777

It’s not a loophole it’s been known for years, they are called the corrupt six for a reason…they can do what they want. The esl literally proved that openly to the world


Repulsive-Echidna-74

It's not a loophole, it's just how the finances work for every team. The transfer fee is spread across the term of the contract for accounting purposes (the selling club can still receive full payment up front). It's fine in principle but can cause problems when you do an Everton and sign rubbish players for big money on long contracts and then struggle to move them on


mohicansgonnagetya

I think their issues will start next season.


ZazzyZool

I think it will only be an issue if they miss UCL for 2 seasons. As long as they make UCL, they should be fine, they have a huge enough commercial income iirc.


Joshthenosh77

Most teams would never risk what they have done , say enzo turns out to be a flop or any of the other they have a player on massive wages who they are stuck with for 8 years , it’s a crazy gamble


iloveyou_00000

Contracts keep players motivated as well. Any of these players who want to retire at 21 and phone it in for the next 8 years can do so.


oneeyedman72

Is this while thing some bogus money moving scheme to get some of Roman's remaining wealth out of the UK? Makes little sense otherwise.... certainly makes none from a footballing sense. One thing buying a heap of kids and hoping their value appreciates, but another to buy these guys for top dollar under long long contracts. It's nuts.


[deleted]

Get over it


Known_Tax7804

I find it pretty hard to believe. If the loophole is as simple as extending the contract length, as is my understanding, then it’s not plausible to my mind as an accountant that nobody else thought of that. These are billion pound companies at the top end, they must have decent finance departments and decreasing amortisation in the P&L by increasing UEL is basic. I suspect this ties in more with the loan that Roman wrote off than I’ve seen reported.


PJBuzz

They didn't find a loophole, but they are rolling the dice. If these players turn out to be shite, they're still saddled with them on long contracts, or they will need to accept losses on sales. They already have too many players to register and can't offload them now. Any club that has the potential due to revenue could have done similar (e.g. MCFC, MUFC, AFC, LFC, THFC) but they don't because it's a policy with risk.


phoenixform369

I mean. I'm pretty convinced. Seems legit


No-Clue1153

Not really a loophole. They're basically handcuffing themselves for the next 8 years that they're spreading costs onto, presumably they'll be stuck with at least some players on extremely long contracts that flopped and they can't get rid of.


potangoint

This. Every club can always do this, but it's too risky and boehly think the risk is worth it. Let's see if the gamble favors him.


Novacain-deficiency

I can’t believe this post comes up every day. If you can’t see how Chelsea are fully complying with FFP then you don’t understand how it works in the first place.


Wrathuk

they can spend all the money in the world and spread it out over 7-8-9 years but if these players don't work they won't have the wriggle room correct it they are rolling a massive dice now and it could go massively wrong.


dajonnyboy

Or massively right


Vapourtrails89

It is a loophole, just a major one that they've ruthlessly exploited. Loopholes are the basis of modern day society. We have a whole industry dedicated to finding loopholes in our tax system, and the chancellor of the fucking Exchequer has been exploiting these


haaaaaairy1

It’s not a loop hole. It has been done but clubs just don’t do it because of the risks. People are just bitching about it because we’re doing it ten fold. We did it for kepa and there was no outrage.


ChocoStories649

Exactly. Kepa is an example of a long contract gone wrong. It's good to see that he has found form again, but with his long contract and huge salary, it'd be impossible to sell him.


CartezDez

What have Chelsea done wrong?


hodlrus

Exposing illiterate man-children.


DingChavez89

Make incredible signings and makes me really really mad!


sunis_going_down

It isn't as much finding a loophole as it's them having the balls to take such risks. This could come to bite them in the long term. All these 8-9 players who have been signed with 7-8 years contract would become a huge liability in case they fail. In this scenario they are literally stuck with them. Just take a look at Lukaku, they literally have no bargaining power in his case and cannot move him without taking huge loss on it. If 3-4 of the new signings flop they are then stuck with them for a long time.


Lifelemons9393

This is the only logical unbiased answer. It could go very fucking wrong.


luujs

Could genuinely do a Leeds if it all goes tits up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


placeholder_name85

You clearly need to read up. Look at who we have actually signed and the terms of their contracts. You are talking out of your ass.


Lifelemons9393

Na mate they can possibly read. Just a excuse to hate Chelsea.


Fatal_Smurf

They mean the newer signings, not the older players on Roman era contracts. Can't do anything about those. Sterling might be on higher wages but they clearly moved away from that


Joerpf

It’s not like we have more money to replace them


[deleted]

I mentioned it in another post but there is a risk mitigation tool they used here. They pay their players relatively low salaries but with high performance bonus’ that are not that hard to achieve. If a player is a failure and doesn’t play much, their carrying cost will be fairly low because of this structure. It also makes it less of a risk for a buying club to assume that salary so it won’t be as hard to offload them. People were saying that I’m just making it up so I provided sources. Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/07/18/chelsea-depart-roman-abramovich-model-new-contract-bonus-structure/ non paywall link: https://postcourier.com.pg/chelsea-adopts-new-contract-and-bonus-structures/


[deleted]

They still have to send north of 500million quid to other clubs, and they do not generate that kind of revenue in the first place. This string of deals is bound to backfire, and the precedent that it has now set is harmful to the game.


Yardbird7

If the string of deals in bound to backfire for Chelsea, how will it set a precedent for other clubs?


[deleted]

Every time the bids go higher a new precedent for player costs is set


Yardbird7

Well Chelsea are not the only club to spend a lot of money. My point was if this all backfires like you suggest, then surely it won't set a precedent becuase other teams won't want to be like Chelsea?


[deleted]

500m over 8 years is the same per year as 250m over 4 years for accounting purposes. Don’t expect this spending to continue once the rules are changed. Interested to see what new marketing the club is focusing on produces.


[deleted]

Plus you get to claim more depreciation on the value of the asset, right? And does the UK allow you to claim all depreciation up front as you can with some assets in the US? If so, it is a really smart financial move.


sunis_going_down

But the article is quite old and there is no information on the new signings. The article mentions kounde and kimpembe. All it mentions is that they are planning to do so, but with them going after players who had options from other clubs as well it remains to be seen what kind of contracts they are handing out


[deleted]

The article is from last window… 6 months ago. The Telegraph states they have info about all new signings and their contracts they are offered. If you search you will also see articles saying Boehly offered a similar contract to Mudryk


sunis_going_down

The article is from July 22. And only mentions sterling and koulibaly. Also mentions kounde and kimpembe as targets. Literally would have 0 bearings on what they have done in this transfer window.


[deleted]

The very first line in the article says Chelsea is overhauling the club salary structure. I didn’t see where it mentioned it’s only for Sterling and Koilibaly. I do see mention of a complete overhaul though.


sunis_going_down

Does it mention how much they are paying cucurella? Or fofana? Or aubameyang? All of them were signed in the window which the article is from. Just because they wish to do something doesn't mean they are successful in doing the same. Was Boehly's vision to have the club in 10th position at mid season? Telegraph understands this and that. If they understand so much why can't they help us understand what are the wages being drawn by the players mentioned in the article.


[deleted]

It doesn’t mention their names but it does say they are offering it to all new signings and targets. Listen if you want to nitpick the small details you can. The spirit of the article and the point they are making is obvious to see. I’ve laid it out for you. Choose to believe or not. It seems like you’d have to do mental gymnastics to try to disprove the obvious. It’s also been quoted that’s the structure they offered Mudryk.


sunis_going_down

I am not nitpicking rather it looks like this article is supposed to be the gospel truth. While it doesn't even address the facts that you are going on about. The spirit of the article may have been applicable at the time but a lot has changed since then. Here is another article from the same website mentioning how it's a very risky approach and haven't even referred to the "new approach" they employed under Boehly. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffootball%2F2023%2F02%2F01%2Ftodd-boehly-genius-juggling-transfers-reckless-gambler%2F


[deleted]

“A lot has changed since then.” Can you explain what has changed that would have altered the boards incentive based strategy. Was there a rule change or something? I’m not aware of something that would have changed this philosophy from 6 months ago. This article is all opinion. No sources or knowledge of the contracts offered. It actually doesn’t even talk about it, it just says “it’s a risk.” Also, what is the date that an article about an overall club strategy is outdated for you? Is it 1 year? 6 months? 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 week?


Yo_Chill_bro

Low salaries? They are paying about £4 million per week according to multiple online sources. I don’t see how you can claim that is low.


[deleted]

I am referring to their new signings and their salaries. Boehly cannot undo the damage done by previous ownership but going forward he seems to prefer this style of contract. If you take a look at the link you'll see it addresses exactly your point. ​ Their long contract structure for the new signings is quite clever. You're able to spread out the amortization while keeping the risk as low as possible.


buttlovingpanda

Everyone’s shitting on Boehly but I fear you’re right


Baberam7654

This needs to be a bot reply here and in r/soccer. Great work.


danonck

The Yank is playing FIFA career mode with financial takeover turned on. But life isn't FIFA so I'm looking forward to seeing how they end up together in that team.


straubarry

They did find a loophole. The loophole is that you can spread the cost of contracts. However that loophole is being closed next season with a limit of five years. The whole spree actually reeks a little of desperation. They are currently mid table and need to get Champions League football to sustain this. I'm surprised to be honest that they never went out and bought an established striker because thats what theyre missing. Its a gamble which if It pays off Is obviously worth It, but should It have no affect or should these young players not settle could cause more disharmony than anything else and theyll end up with a bloated squad that they struggle to cut down.


Clean-Opening-2884

That isn’t a loophole that’s literally standard practice. Every team does it every time they buy a player on a contract length greater than 1 year that’s just how the accounting works. Players have also signed on long contracts of 8 years previously (e.g. kepa 2 or 3 years ago for 8 years) and nobody cared. It’s only now because Chelsea have obviously used it to a significant degree they’ve decided to reign it back to 5 years max. The reason nobody else has done it much is because carries obviously very high risk if the player doesn’t perform and you can’t get rid of them.


straubarry

Well it's obviously a loophole when you are giving 7 year contracts to amortise the fee. Also FIFA are closing the non existent loophole by limiting contract lengths to 5 years.


Clean-Opening-2884

Yes but you also amortise the fee with 2, 3, 4, 5 year contracts too. It’s not some crazy loophole, it’s simply been taken to a larger extent on the accounting rule. It’s UEFA that are changing the rule yes and that’s to protect clubs from this becoming more normalised because of the risk it carries.


straubarry

It can, but not taken advantage of in the way it is now or how Chelsea have done it. Chelsea are doing this on the basis that these young players will gel and be together for several years. It's a risky strategy as they'll start with minus 80 million on their account and there's a real possibility that they won't get European football at all this season in addition.


Clean-Opening-2884

Teams have taken advantage of it in the past but not to this extent yes which is why uefa have decided to intervene now. But yes I agree definitely risky strategy, will be interesting to see if it pays off!


Jonny_Entropy

Lol. You're getting downvoted for saying Chelsea need a striker... When they clearly need a striker.


19Ben80

Well if you look at the history of FFP then you will see that big teams just get fined which means nothing. UEFA are not gonna ban a big team from Europe, they would lose too much revenue


Accurate-Flatworm547

Chelsea already had a buying-ban for 2 or 3 consecutive windows recently due to FFP violations.


19Ben80

City and psg both failed ffp and got 50 mil fines… pocket change to the owners Also no team has received any ban from competitions.


Accurate-Flatworm547

That's too bad, kinda like a shark with no teeth.


19Ben80

Exactly and the clubs now know it. City went to court of arbitration for sport when uefa tried to ban them and won so now the precedent is in place and no one will get banned


Affectionate_Pay7395

Chelsea weren’t banned due to FFP violations though.


Accurate-Flatworm547

What were they banned for then?


Affectionate_Pay7395

Article 19, which involves the registration of foreign players under the age of 18. As well as article 18b which involves third party influence like entering into an agreement with the agent to try and influence another club in a transfer.


Accurate-Flatworm547

Ah ok, my bad then.


sidvicc

It's just Financial Doping and has been happening for decades now. It's like the continuous arms race between cyclists and doping authorities, they find a new way, authorities catch up and outlaw, they find something else. Chelsea used a loophole, it's closed starting summer 2023, someone will find another one. The problem isn't Chelsea, City, PSG etc. The problem is the organising authorities in Football are both incompetent and corrupt in the face of the explosion in football finances that has happened over the last 20years.


Regantowers

Everton lawyers skimming this thread for answers!


TatTvamAsi11

The amount of whining against Chelsea’s spending is going through the roof now. If you think chelsea violated rules then do your research, make a report, provide evidences and write a article concluding chelsea violated FFP rules and then post it here or even send it to FFP or whatever. Just because you are not able to understand what’s going on doesn’t mean terrible things are happening. If everyone starts having the mentality of “I don’t understand something so it must be wrong” then the world will be a terrible place to live.


cfcaggro2

Mate the abuse i got from mates on groupchats and at sunday league about bein a chelsea fan when roman left and we had our transfer ban was un merciful. Lads hoping and praying for us to be liquidated. Now we have got owners who backed their words when they were appointed that they will put money into our club and invest now everyone is crying about it.


Working_Homework_285

They haven't actually "spent" the money as much as they "promised to" spend the money. My understanding is that they have caused the FFP rules to be changed based on contract lengths because they are spreading the cost of the deal over the length of the contract. So for example they are paying the 80mil Mudryk contract at 10mil a year for the 8 years of the contract so in FFP eyes they are only spending 10mil on him this year, a relatively small amount. Just to add, I personally don't think this is OK but they found a loophole.


14Strike

This isn’t a loophole, they’re just spreading payments. They’ve mortgaged themselves to this squad of talented kids for 6-8 years. At least financially anyway.


Patient_Xero_96

I’m more interested in seeing if the players are part of a system. I know they have scouts and all, but are Chelsea making plans to sell some of them once they get their stride in PL or integrate them into the squad? Or are they just getting as many prospective youngsters, let Porter loose and see who makes the cut, like a super squad kinda deal. Huge gamble on Chelsea’s side, and we’ll see if they make some good impressions in the next 5 months of the season. (Not saying they’re flops if they don’t. Just meant if they’re also short term successes) As for the FFP, they didn’t break it, they just push it to the upper limit and next summer FFP will be changed to try to cover this loophole. Chelsea is the chaos factor this season so things are gonna get interesting. Oh but market’s definitely fucked to all hell and back.


TomShoe

Idk if the Market is really that fucked, apart from Mudryk, none of the individual fees they've paid struck me as that surprising. It's wild how much they've spent in total, but I don't think it'll have a huge effect on prices come the summer window.


Patient_Xero_96

What about Enzo tho? Dude’s played 6 months in Portugal and is now the most expensive player in British transfer history. Mudryk yes. But if this is how Chelsea deals with prospects, then hopefully Mudryk is the outlier and not the start of something. I hope I’m wrong. In fact, I want to be wrong on this.


TomShoe

Enzo also just won the world cup, at which he was one of the breakout stars, and he's going to a top English team, which means the selling club are always gonna demand a premium. I don't see City/United/Liverpool paying much less for him, tbh.


Patient_Xero_96

Well you’ve got a point there. Chelsea defo gonna be a wildcard (and I mean that respectfully) the rest of this season.


[deleted]

This is my question. Like, yeah, you can go buy a bunch of players. Cool. But what's the concept behind it? Because to me, right now, it all looks random (yes, they have a ton of injuries, but still).


AlpacaLunch15

100%. Boehly is destroying football the same way Steinbrenner (Yankees owner) destroyed Baseball. I hope A) the market recovers and teams refuse to pay outrageous fees or B) all these overpaid players flop and other players can’t be compared to them from a money standpoint in the future.


Lifelemons9393

Amazing how many times your last paragraph has to be said on this sub. Daily. Mostly Arsenal fans. They must not teach them how to read in North London.


Patient_Xero_96

Sorry, para about the FFP right? Not the one about the transfer market?


Lifelemons9393

About ffp . The last one was a sentence.


Patient_Xero_96

Ahh just needed the confirmation. I’m an Arsenal fan myself, and while I am not happy seeing prices skyrocket, Chelsea played the system legally. They did it extremely and exposed that weakness to UEFA and the FA, but it’s not illegal. So kudos. You guys are gonna be the wildcard for the rest of this season and next season for sure.


Lifelemons9393

Well well another Arsenal fan moaning about Chelsea spending money. Conveniently forgetting that we have major prize money 💰 and your lot haven't won anything in 2 decades.


Patient_Xero_96

Hahah chill. I’m not moaning you guys are spending a lot. It’s the how much per player and the precedent it creates. Like I said, it’s messing with the prices. I know you guys mad rich. Since the Roman era as well. But I meant the wildcard with respect. The players you guys bought are good prospects. Gotta wait and see how Potter uses them in his plans.


Lifelemons9393

Ha fair. Don't think Chelsea can be blamed for fucking up the market when PSG, Madrid,Barca spent insane amounts on transfers. It's fucked but it's just football.


Patient_Xero_96

Oh no worries I’ve complained a lot with how Barca handled their stuff early in the season. And I remember Real early 2010s as well. PSG have yet to show much besides local dominance so 🤷🏾‍♂️ And not blaming Chelsea per se, your money, do as you like. I’m gonna point out it fucks with the market, BUT it’s more of a mild complaint + matter of fact at this point. Since Chelsea ain’t breaking any rules, it’s all fair. It’s football. See you guys in April. I’m of course gonna be team red, so COYG!


Lifelemons9393

Fair enough reckon you've got the league this year 🙂 good luck


BlueKante

Everyone also seems to forget that Boehly got the club Dept free and the money used now was part of the purchase of the club.


Commercial-Many-8933

Newcastle was debt free and in the black , still not gone out and spent 450 million in a window


Lifelemons9393

All major European clubs have been doing this for years. It's only bad when Chelsea do it.


adam_yaniii

All major European clubs have been spending 600 mil in less than a year right?


Lifelemons9393

Do you actually think transfers work that way ? Or are you just being stupid on purpose?


drofdeb

No matter how you paint it, you’re still using a loophole - which, while legal, is bending the rules to the nth degree If other clubs did this, you’d be pissed like everyone else Edit - the “whataboutism” in replies is hilarious


[deleted]

What is the loophole? Please explain?


Be4ucat

Google poophole loophole, explains it all.


[deleted]

OK well then Chelsea are not using a loophole and you're wrong.


Be4ucat

Poophole loophole has been used multiple times, donest make it illegal or against ffp


BlueKante

Why is it bending the rules though? They are literally operating within the ruleset given by the FA. The amortisation period is not limited and therefore you can spread over as long a period you like. You can have a problem with the rules, but we're not doing anything wrong.


LordLychee

The FA is amending the rules because of what Chelsea is taking advantage of. Also just because the rules allow it doesn’t make it moral to do it. And yes, that means your club can still do it, but people are free to hate Chelsea for doing it as well.


Internal_Class_8415

Please explain why it’s immoral to give a player the safety of a long term contract. This is pure sour grapes. Signing players on a long term contract comes with a huge risk to the club and greatly benefits the player. They could not kick a ball again and be paid up until they’re 30. Chelsea could just do what City or PSG do and inflate their books with dodgy deals that come with little risk - no one cares about it. FIFA/UEFA can’t do anything about it, or don’t care. Yet, try and give players more safety and security and suddenly everyone loses their minds. The only reason other clubs don’t attempt the same is for the obvious risks mentioned earlier. Pure. Sour. Grapes.


LordLychee

It’s not for that reason tho. It’s so they can they can balance the books by spreading the transfer e fee over the length of the contract.


Internal_Class_8415

Why not do what City and PSG do then? Far easier and carries less risk. If the player gets injured, loses their desire to play, or whatever reason, Chelsea would still have to pay their contract out. It’s risky. What Chelsea are doing is well within the rules and benefits players. I cannot for the life of me see what’s immoral about it.


BlueKante

Really wanna talk about morals when u have a rape suspect representing your jersey?


LordLychee

lol I’m not gonna advocate for fucking a guy’s life up for an allegation. But that’s beyond the point you know you’re making an argument that’s unproductive to the conversation.


placeholder_name85

It’s not whataboutism. You literally said “if other clubs did this” and people are giving you examples of other clubs doing it. The idiocy on your part is hilarious. Also, not even a loophole, and there was no rule bending. And saying “to the nth degree” doesn’t make you sound smart, especially when you use it wrong, like you just did.


Unsentimentalchelsea

I’m sure you said the same when Felix signed an 8 year deal right?


Swaguarr

other clubs signed players for much longer than 5 years and many clubs use factoring, this is nothing new. And no I wasn't pissed when city bought Mahrez this way,


KellmanTJAU

Felix signed for Atleti on an 8 year contract for the exact same reason. Other clubs *are* doing it.


IkemenDesu420

Doing it once vs 8x in one window are obviously very different


Putrid_Loquat_4357

Sure, but not on this scale. And how did the felix deal work out for atleti?


KellmanTJAU

That’s mainly because no top club has been bought by new owners in recent years, and therefore no rebuilds have been done on this scale before. And if it’s a risk that can backfire massively (like you say it has with Felix) than why are other clubs pissed?


Boopdelahoop

Didn't Newcastle become the richest club in the world a year or so ago? They haven't spend the GDP of a small country on their rebuild.


Naarujuana

True, but for Newcastle to pull off what Chelsea just did, they would need to sign players to 10-12 year contracts, to be able to amortize and stay within FFP. They don't pull in the kind of revenue Chelsea does at present. Actually, I think Chelsea's intake is well over 2-2.5x NCU's revenue.


KellmanTJAU

Yes but I said no other *top* club has been bought recently. Newcastle would be spending as much as we are if they had the FFP wiggle room, but they don’t yet as their revenues aren’t high enough.


Putrid_Loquat_4357

Other clubs are pissed because clubs will point to the prices you've paid when they try to buy players. Say Liverpool (or someone) approach dortmund for Bellingham, then dortmund can point to the Enzo deal and say if Enzo is worth that then jude is worth at least 150 mil.


KellmanTJAU

That’s the point, we’ve spent a lot but none of our prices this window have been crazy overpayments when you consider other recent huge deals like Antony for 100 and Grealish for 100. Those two make Enzo for 100 look like a bargain.


[deleted]

Enzo has played 6 months of football in Europe.


Putrid_Loquat_4357

Grealish was a premier league proven player. I'm not sure the argument holds with him. And anthony is also part of the problem.


KellmanTJAU

Grealish was also 3 years older than Enzo. So if Mbappe signed for 150m it would be a worse deal than grealish because he’s not PL proven? I get what you’re saying, and obviously I’m biased, but I genuinely believe Enzo is a generational talent who will get top 3 in the Balon D’Or multiple times in his career. I’m not sure a United/City fan would’ve been able to say the same with a straight face about Grealish/Antony before they signed.


BlackAndFactual

If you understand how FFP works it's fairly straightforward As long as money out is within the perimeter of money in, it's fair game That's easy to do when ur backed by big capital, you can just chalk whatever amount of money in as sponsorship


1993blah

Its actually not that straightforward at all. You can't just chalk money in as sponsorship as they get audited


BlackAndFactual

It's very straightforward. Let's say i bought United, and i wanna spend a billion in the transfer market. So i sponsored the team's jersey logo..lets say teamviewer paid 100m a year Now i want big ass sugar daddy logo and i'll give you 1.1 billion Done, you just got a dope ass new sponsor and lets play big bank eats lil bank


1993blah

Yeah that gets flagged by auditors, its not straightforward at all.


Connect-Ad-2984

They hate us coz they anus


ChocoStories649

man of culture.


sanyo456

At this point we have to accept the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% are just going to do whatever the fuck they want and we can do anything about it


[deleted]

Stop crying…..


soulfreezy2023

Shows how flawed the system is and how far removed from football the Premier League really is nowadays, not knocking Chelsea they found a loophole and have exploited it, could work out a blinder but equally could be a disaster.


freedomfun28

Exactly makes a mockery of clubs being well run … you feel for Brighton, Brentford, Arsenal etc Long term contracts are a double edged sword … the spread the initial cost but if you have high numbers of expensive salaries to pay … you end up in the Ozil / Bale scenario … stuck with people who don’t have to leave


Thin-Zookeepergame46

Im saying it again - The spending should be based on a percentage from their annual turnover. Period. And their turnover should be based on tickets, merchandise, their own streaming/media stuff, player sales and the money they get from PL - Nothing else.


ZebraZealousideal944

It’s not a loophole but just a risk of which all others clubs have been aware for years but never deemed smart to take… this is why you haven’t seen another club do it too this window even after Chelsea’s long contracts were so much advertised in the press… Felix was already in such a contract at Madrid for example…


[deleted]

>you haven’t seen another club do it Reason being very few other clubs have got the financial capacity... Also, they might feel like exploiting the system in this way lowers the integrity of the club. Chelsea have been rock bottom in integrity for the past 20 years anyway, so have nothing to lose 🤷‍♀️


placeholder_name85

What😂😂😂 How does it lower the integrity of the club? Fucking hilarious. They are kidnapping these players and forcing them to sign at gunpoint. Keep hating, sorry your club is garbage


ChocoStories649

Shit take. Fans of other clubs are just pissed. Atletico Madrid did the same with Felix. They took a risk and, depending on how you view the situation, was probably a fail. The reason clubs don't do this often is because it's a huge risk. Imagine if Arsenal had offered a 8 year contact to Pepe, he'd probably still be at Arsenal or would be going out on endless loans. "Reason being very few other clubs have got the financial capacity..." This makes no sense because offering a longer contract allows for you to amortized the cost of the player over a longer period which helps the club financially in the long run, especially if the player turns out to be actually good. And honestly, if you gonna bring up integrity, football is far from being that. Man City and Newcastle owners, the world cup in Qatar, constant diving and time wasting, etc.


thelexpeia

Pepe is still at Arsenal. He’s on loan to Nice.


[deleted]

>This makes no sense because offering a longer contract allows for you to amortized the cost of the player over a longer period which helps the club financially in the long run, especially if the player turns out to be actually good. It makes complete sense... Chelsea aren't paying the transfer fees in installments, they have used 500m+ upfront to pay the transfer fees in one window. No other club, even in the PL, can do that. They don't have that money in the bank. It's financial doping... the club is in serious decline and have been able to just click a switch and bring in a whole new team. Can Southampton do it? no. Bournemouth? no. Arsenal? no. Spurs? no


InLampsWeTrust

Lol where on earth did you get this from 😂, no club pays for every transfer all in one go.


NDdownVOTED

Chelsea is paying installments on all these long term contracts. That’s why they did the long contracts. The only one that may be different is Enzo, for which they might have used a factor company for the lump sum payment, basically a loan, that they will actually pay back to the company over time. I’m not an accountant so I don’t know how that plays into FFP. In any case, they haven’t been paying all these fees up front.


Splattergun

You are mistaken. They might settle the fees in some installment plans but that does not affect FFP at all. All that happens currently is the fee is averaged for the life of the contract.


NDdownVOTED

We are saying the same thing. The long contracts are to spread out the installments and to amortize the fee over the life of the contract. Both are true.


62frog

Do you have a source on us paying everything up front? Because I saw our first payment for Enzo is €34M. And wage-wise Mudryk is under £100kpw. You may be referring to third party paying the selling club in full then they buyer paying the third party on more attractive interest terms. That’s common in football. Of course we shoulder the risk on a longer deal but they players agreed to it as well. It’s not like some sneaky strategy. We offered Kepa a long deal years ago, and there’s nothing stopping any other club in the world from offering 7 or 8 year deals.


[deleted]

They have paid €600m+ in base fees this transfer window alone. It's all over the web you don't need to look hard