What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
24,985
93,838
Shamelessly taken from the BBC website,

Who is in Chelsea's squad?​

Goalkeepers (8)
Filip Jorgensen, 22, signed for £21m; Robert Sanchez, 26, £25m; Djordje Petrovic, 24, £14m (available on loan); Kepa Arrizabalaga, 29, £72m* (for sale); Marcus Bettinelli, 32, free*; Mike Penders, 19, £17m (on loan) not yet confirmed; Gabriel Slonina, 20, £9m (available on loan); Lucas Bergstrom, 21, undisclosed* (for sale/loan).

Full-backs (7)
Reece James, right, 24, academy; Marc Cucurella, left, 26, £62m; Ben Chilwell, left, 27, £45m*; Renato Veiga, left, 21, £12m; Malo Gusto, 21, right, £30m; Josh Acheampong, right, 18, academy; Caleb Wiley, left, 19, £9m (on loan).

Centre-backs (9)
Axel Disasi, 26, £39m; Wesley Fofana, 23, £75m; Levi Colwill, 21, academy; Tosin Adarabioyo, 26, free; Benoit Badiashile, 23, £33m; Trevoh Chalobah, 25, academy (for sale); Aaron Anselmino, 19, £16 (on loan); Alfie Gilchrist, 20, academy (on loan); Bashir Humphreys, 21, academy (for sale/loan).

Midfielders (15)
Enzo Fernandez, 23, £107m; Moises Caicedo, 22, £115m; Christopher Nkunku, 26, £52m; Omari Kellyman, 19, £19m; Cesare Casadei, 21, £17m; Lesley Ugochukwu, 20, £23m; Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, 25, £30m; Romeo Lavia, 20, £53m; Carney Chukwuemeka, 20, £20m; Tino Anjorin, 22, academy (available for sale/loan); Andrey Santos, 20, £18m (on loan); Kendry Paez, 17, £17m (on loan); Alex Matos, 19, free; Jimi Tauriainen, 20, undisclosed* (available on loan); Leo Castledine, 18, academy (available on loan).

Wingers (9)
Mykhailo Mudryk, left, 23, £89m; Raheem Sterling, left, 29, £48m; Pedro Neto, left, 24, £54m; Cole Palmer, right, 22, £43m; Noni Madueke, right, 22, £29m; Estaevo Willian, right, 17, £51m (on loan); Angelo Gabriel, right, 19, £13m (available on loan); Harvey Vale, 20, academy (for sale/loan); Diego Moreira, 20, free.

Strikers (7)
Romelu Lukaku, 31, £100m*; Nicolas Jackson, 23, £32m; David Datro Fofana,21, £11m (for sale); Deivid Washington, 19, £17m; Marc Guiu, 18, £5m; Mason Burstow, 21, £1.5m* (for sale/loan); Armando Broja, 22, academy (for sale).

Total, including loanees: 55
Just checked the Brazilian lads progress there.

Angelo was hardly used in preseason and has been made available for loan.

Andrey Santos got slightly more minutes and was sent back on loan with Strasbourg.

Deivid Washington wasn't even given a minute and will probably either stay with Chelsea's PL2 team or go out on loan.

Considering Estevao, Paez and Mec will join in the next 18 months or so what a Total waste of time for all of them.
 

FibreOpticJesus

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2005
3,121
5,617
That's not quite what the ruling prohibits.

A club can still sign a player to a contract of any length that both parties agree to, but the amortisation of the contract will now have a maximum of 5 years.
Agreed. But does the new contract effectively not start the five year amortisation period again? In other words are they allowed to move initial valuations of players on or an increased value put on the player which again starts the five year again. The guys heading up Chelsea are not mugs. They must see something we cannot.
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
13,396
18,873
Agreed. But does the new contract effectively not start the five year amortisation period again? In other words are they allowed to move initial valuations of players on or an increased value put on the player which again starts the five year again. The guys heading up Chelsea are not mugs. They must see something we cannot.
Short answer - no. That’s not how it works.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
48,098
109,884
This is yet another move which makes no sense to me. One of the chief benefits to Chelsea of offering long contracts is to make the wage bill inflation-proof and enable them to retain high value players at below market-rate wages. Offering extensions to players when they’re only a year into an 8 year contract - assuming the player will only sign that if it includes a pay rise - negates that benefit.

I think they are trying to change the market now with these long deals hoping other clubs do them as well as that will drive up transfer fees that only clubs like them are willing to pay. Hopefully other clubs don’t follow suit.
 

PCozzie

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2020
4,948
22,942
Agreed. But does the new contract effectively not start the five year amortisation period again? In other words are they allowed to move initial valuations of players on or an increased value put on the player which again starts the five year again. The guys heading up Chelsea are not mugs. They must see something we cannot.
That I have no idea about. There's a few here who have a much better understanding than I will ever have, so hopefully someone will be able to answer that,
 

DFF

Jam Tomorrow
May 17, 2005
14,286
6,313
Agreed. But does the new contract effectively not start the five year amortisation period again? In other words are they allowed to move initial valuations of players on or an increased value put on the player which again starts the five year again. The guys heading up Chelsea are not mugs. They must see something we cannot.
Yes, the remaining unamortized amount gets spread out over a new 5 year period.

Transfer fees will be able to be spread over an increased period as the result of a contract extension, but again this is limited to the maximum five-year period.

 
Last edited:

tommo84

Proud to be loud
Aug 15, 2005
7,030
13,441
Yes, the remaining unamortized amount gets spread out over a new 5 year period.

Transfer fees will be able to be spread over an increased period as the result of a contract extension, but again this is limited to the maximum five-year period.

I don’t think you’ve understood that passage correctly. I believe what that means is that if you initially signed a player on a 3 year contract and then extended his contract in Year 2 by a further 2 years, the initial fee could then be spread out over 5 years from the original purchase date. It doesn’t allow clubs to perpetually kick the can down the road or repeatedly restart the amortisation period.
 

FibreOpticJesus

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2005
3,121
5,617
Seems like none of us know for sure. As I said earlier I cannot believe these yanks with British financial expertise are not all over this. Time will tell.
 

razor1981

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2012
1,422
9,829
Seems like none of us know for sure. As I said earlier I cannot believe these yanks with British financial expertise are not all over this. Time will tell.
Boehly & co remind me of a US insurance firm I did some consulting for a few years ago. They had decided to enter the UK market without making any attempt to understand or comply with our (relatively strict) regulatory framework.

I was brought in as the Financial Conduct Authority were threatening to audit this firm's activities, and they wanted to get their house in order ahead of that. Within a day of arriving on site, we'd established that 90%+ of their insurance sales were in breach of FCA rules and we advised them to cease selling any new business with immediate effect. They refused, because they thought they were smarter than us and all the other UK companies, and had found loopholes in the rules to exploit to their benefit.

They dispensed of our services within a month because they didn't like what we were telling them. Last I heard, at least 3 of the senior management were serving prison sentences for fraud.

Boehly thinks he's playing 4d chess, but I reckon he's going to eventually find out that he's actually been playing Kerplunk all along.
 

RuskyM

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2011
8,806
31,442
Boehly & co remind me of a US insurance firm I did some consulting for a few years ago. They had decided to enter the UK market without making any attempt to understand or comply with our (relatively strict) regulatory framework.

I was brought in as the Financial Conduct Authority were threatening to audit this firm's activities, and they wanted to get their house in order ahead of that. Within a day of arriving on site, we'd established that 90%+ of their insurance sales were in breach of FCA rules and we advised them to cease selling any new business with immediate effect. They refused, because they thought they were smarter than us and all the other UK companies, and had found loopholes in the rules to exploit to their benefit.

They dispensed of our services within a month because they didn't like what we were telling them. Last I heard, at least 3 of the senior management were serving prison sentences for fraud.

Boehly thinks he's playing 4d chess, but I reckon he's going to eventually find out that he's actually been playing Kerplunk all along.
It's the classic "I have a lot of money so I'm probably good at everything right?" approach. I understand they're not everyone's cup of tea but one of the major things Wrexham's owners got right was knowing what they didn't know, and not confusing enthusiasm for insight.

I mean, there's always the chance you're the special genius who's figured out an angle no one else has, but it's much more likely the plethora of advisors, analysts, and experts clubs pay a lot of money to get around these rules have considered it before. Like no one's made a spaceship out of caramel, but that's not because it's a great idea that no one's considered, but because it's pretty likely they know you'd just end up with some tasty astronauts.
 

FibreOpticJesus

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2005
3,121
5,617
Boehly & co remind me of a US insurance firm I did some consulting for a few years ago. They had decided to enter the UK market without making any attempt to understand or comply with our (relatively strict) regulatory framework.

I was brought in as the Financial Conduct Authority were threatening to audit this firm's activities, and they wanted to get their house in order ahead of that. Within a day of arriving on site, we'd established that 90%+ of their insurance sales were in breach of FCA rules and we advised them to cease selling any new business with immediate effect. They refused, because they thought they were smarter than us and all the other UK companies, and had found loopholes in the rules to exploit to their benefit.

They dispensed of our services within a month because they didn't like what we were telling them. Last I heard, at least 3 of the senior management were serving prison sentences for fraud.

Boehly thinks he's playing 4d chess, but I reckon he's going to eventually find out that he's actually been playing Kerplunk all along.
I so want to see those marbles rolling along the Kings Road😆
 

arunspurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
9,716
39,818
They have 6 Goal keepers who they actually paid money to get.
And of the total 8 GK they have, I would take none of them in our squad let alone XI.
 

sidford

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2003
13,194
39,564
I don’t think you’ve understood that passage correctly. I believe what that means is that if you initially signed a player on a 3 year contract and then extended his contract in Year 2 by a further 2 years, the initial fee could then be spread out over 5 years from the original purchase date. It doesn’t allow clubs to perpetually kick the can down the road or repeatedly restart the amortisation period.
That's exactly it. Max is now 5 years so regardless if the player leaves after 6 years or 10 years it doesn't matter the amortisation period will have ended after year 5.
I will give Boehly and his lot a tiny amount of credit for spotting the loophole being able to amortise over 8-10 years if they wanted to. It's a novel idea but.....
The issue being that they thought this was some great trick whereas in reality there were very good reasons clubs didn't give players 8-10 year contracts because it's a stupid strategy. They classified themselves as disruptors but the reality is they have been used by selling clubs (especially last season) and they will do untold damage to Chelsea with a potential to bankrupt the club in medium term.
 

kev1nxxx

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2013
287
670
That's exactly it. Max is now 5 years so regardless if the player leaves after 6 years or 10 years it doesn't matter the amortisation period will have ended after year 5.
I will give Boehly and his lot a tiny amount of credit for spotting the loophole being able to amortise over 8-10 years if they wanted to. It's a novel idea but.....
The issue being that they thought this was some great trick whereas in reality there were very good reasons clubs didn't give players 8-10 year contracts because it's a stupid strategy. They classified themselves as disruptors but the reality is they have been used by selling clubs (especially last season) and they will do untold damage to Chelsea with a potential to bankrupt the club in medium term.
Finally you get to the good news... :cautious:
 

CantSmileWithoutYou

Well-Endowed Member
May 20, 2015
4,298
17,283
I wonder if there was a clause in Palmer's initial contract, that they wanted out?

Maybe a release clause or 'city come calling' clause, that they've effectively bought out, with a new improved contract.
 

newbie

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
6,787
7,593
That's exactly it. Max is now 5 years so regardless if the player leaves after 6 years or 10 years it doesn't matter the amortisation period will have ended after year 5.
I will give Boehly and his lot a tiny amount of credit for spotting the loophole being able to amortise over 8-10 years if they wanted to. It's a novel idea but.....
The issue being that they thought this was some great trick whereas in reality there were very good reasons clubs didn't give players 8-10 year contracts because it's a stupid strategy. They classified themselves as disruptors but the reality is they have been used by selling clubs (especially last season) and they will do untold damage to Chelsea with a potential to bankrupt the club in medium term.

I don’t think bankruptcy is an issue. I think they are financially doped to whole new level, the only thing holding then back is FFP

Which they’re pretty much negated by buying themselves from themselves from themselves
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2003
10,349
13,422
That's exactly it. Max is now 5 years so regardless if the player leaves after 6 years or 10 years it doesn't matter the amortisation period will have ended after year 5.
I will give Boehly and his lot a tiny amount of credit for spotting the loophole being able to amortise over 8-10 years if they wanted to. It's a novel idea but.....
The issue being that they thought this was some great trick whereas in reality there were very good reasons clubs didn't give players 8-10 year contracts because it's a stupid strategy. They classified themselves as disruptors but the reality is they have been used by selling clubs (especially last season) and they will do untold damage to Chelsea with a potential to bankrupt the club in medium term.
I think you’re being generous with bankruptcy being medium term, they’ve sold a hotel and the women’s team to themselves already and they don’t own the ground, has their Cobham training ground been sold yet?
This time in two years, if not before, we’ll see them hopefully go to the wall, unfortunately though we all thought that when abramovic left but they got let off of god knows how many millions of debt.
The club has been a stain on football for the last 20 odd years now and needs to be held accountable in name now.
 
Top