Chelsea still represent a big pull though.....not just for the money. They've established themselves as a big club in Europe and consistently win things. They have a proven manager who wins trophies.....regardless of how ugly they play sometimes. I agree that players these days will go there with their eyes wide open, knowing that they may be loaned out for the foreseeable future but there's always a chance that they'd get into the squad/team and that represents an opportunity. If earning big money is a side product while they harbour those dreams, I don't blame them for doing it. We should be employing a similar model ourselves if possible as a means of generating revenue.....You could argue that with players like Suso and Assaidi, we already are but on a much smaller scale.
But do you think that the players that Chelsea loan get their wages paid the full 100% by the loanee club? The initial lure of big wages that draws many of these mercenaries surely cannot be matched by the smaller clubs they are inevitably loaned to. That makes the whole business model unsustainable. This whole buying players then loaning out to teams of our choosing so that our direct rivals cannot have them while still subsidizing their wages needs to be stamped out. Or else you get Wayne Bridge situations where mediocre players are on ridiculous wages but can't play for their parent club because or their mediocrity but can't play for a loanee club either because they are priced out. Even when, to use Bridge again for example, he did go to West Ham, I doubt they could afford his wages and doubt they would be stupid enough to pay them either so Man City must have been subsidizing his playing for WHU. Ridiculous.
I don't disagree that some of the practice of loaning players out is a little suspect but as clubs have to abide by FFP, I assume that this will become a thing of the past. Also, these days, a 'loan fee' is asked, thus generating even more income. Do player acquisitions even count in FFP or is it just the operating cost of a club, with investments in a player treated like an asset and written off over time?
oh no player purchase is certainly counted. I do agree it is highly unlikely that 100% of every chelski on loan got fully paid for. some yes like lukaku but those gone off to the backwaters no way.
I really am not sure how it works but there seems to be a method in the madness. Chelsea have spent big but did not fall foul of FFP. Look at Moses. We, no doubt, payed a fee for him PLUS his salary and Chelsea wrote his investment off for another year. So for that particular year, they made Moses a contributing asset. If you can't flog 'em, make 'em work! I suspect a hell of a lot of jiggery pokery going on with the books to make them balance for FFP.
Liverpool have hit a brick wall in their attempt to land young Spanish full-back Alberto Moreno, according to the Daily Mirror. It is reported that Liverpool have refused to pay an asking price of almost £20million – and will not budge beyond £13.5m. With Tottenham understood to be ready to make a bid, Brendan Rodgers could switch his sights to another long-term target, Marcos Rojo of Sporting Lisbon.
If true, it's a shame....Moreno looked a real talent. Hope we don't regret penny pinching......it didn't get us anywhere last summer.
who knows... up front v add ons and all sorts of reprot makes it impossible to say but in the end is it penny pinching of getting value. as moving on the ROJO might be cheaper or not depending on his performances at WC and his clubs expectations.
but only barely!!! they let mata go which probably was more FFP than anything and I do feel there is a lot of jiggery pokery as you say... i mean the difference between up fornt 100% and installments here can certianly tip the scales!
Well yeah, Money up front has a value that can be easily calculated. But in FFP terms, I suspect you're right and that is magnified untold times! I also suspect that we'll be sailing very close to the wind with regards to FFP, as will every major club. Making every penny work for you is a cornerstone of sound financial management, regardless of industry. So, I can't knock Chelsea for doing what's best for them within the rules. In fact, I wish we had the clout at the time to copy it. Too late now.
I think with any rule like this you are right if you are not sailing skirts to the wind you are not competing. a club like say oh i dunno southampton or someone can turn a yearly profit and play in 7th-12th or whatever but to play in the big leagues you have to basically run at a big loos for daddy to pay for... which is why cash injections directly in are provided for i think.
Is there still a provision for cash injections? I thought that's it'd be limited or even outlawed under FFP. Southampton have a totally different model. They've invested most of their money in development and it's working (for now). They fund everything by selling their best players and bringing the next generation through. All very good until the next gen aren't quite good enough! Their latest managerial appointment suggests that this will continue.
what if those players have ambition you so clearly seek but that confidence in their ability is too big? They join thinking they are good enough to break into the first team but inevitably they're not. Players always believe they are better than they actually are so I can see why a player would join a club as much as I can see why you accuse them of being mercenaries.
