You're more than likely correct (it's usually the case that sales are allowed) but it depends on how harshly they want to deal with them... If they were still allowed to sell in that period, it would be of almost no detriment.
I think they are indeed taking their chances with FFP. Gambling on likely not being in Europe (so no ban will impact) and a massive fine being the outcome. i'd love it if they were deducted points as well though.
couldn't be arsed to post a new thread but as it's has some sort of Chelsea topic https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/newcastle-united-sign-lewis-hall/ Newcastle United have signed defender Lewis Hall on a season-long loan from Chelsea. The deal includes an obligation for the Magpies to make the transfer permanent next summer based on performance-related criteria. A boyhood Newcastle United fan, Lewis is the fifth arrival at St. James' Park this summer and will wear shirt number 20. The 18-year-old full-back is regarded as one of Chelsea's most highly rated Academy graduates and has made 12 senior appearances for the Blues - including starts in both Premier League matches against Newcastle United last season. He was named Chelsea's Academy Player of the Year for the 2022/23 season - just two years after Tino Livramento picked up the same accolade - and he was presented with the award on the pitch at Stamford Bridge before a 1-1 draw with the Magpies in May. please log in to view this image
I don't think either the PL or Uefa will allow them to get away with it. It would set a precedent. We could literally copy their model to fast track things and say 'you've set a precedent with Chelsea and we'll see you in court' if we have worse punishment.
Profit and Loss Estimates: Chelsea is projected to incur significant losses: £70 million in 2022/23 and £132 million in 2023/24. These losses result from large operating losses (£182 million in 2022/23 and £230 million in 2023/24), partially offset by substantial profits from player sales (£114 million in 2022/23 and £101 million in 2023/24). These estimates are based on certain assumptions but are directionally reasonable. Financial Fair Play (FFP) - Premier League: Premier League rules allow for a £5 million annual loss, extendable to £35 million per year (with owner funding) over a three-year monitoring period. Chelsea's reported losses exceeded this limit but could be reduced through allowable deductions. Deductions include expenditures like academy, infrastructure, women's team, community, and software amortization, which Chelsea estimates at £116 million. An additional deduction of £128 million is allowed for losses related to COVID-19. Despite these deductions, Chelsea barely complied with Premier League FFP rules in 2021/22. Projections suggest Chelsea will fare better in 2022/23 due to the removal of a significant 2018/19 loss, but they are still above the limit in 2023/24. Financial Fair Play (FFP) - UEFA: UEFA's FFP rules are stricter, with a €30 million per year allowable loss over a three-year period. Chelsea exceeded this limit in 2021/22, even after deductions and considering the impact of COVID-19. Chelsea was on UEFA's watch list but appeared to comply due to adjustments. A little-known UEFA regulation allowed Chelsea to offset deficits with surpluses from previous years. New UEFA regulations have increased the allowable loss to €60 million, with additional allowances for clubs in good financial health. Chelsea's qualification status for European competition affects UEFA's rules. UEFA Squad Cost Control Ratio: UEFA introduced a new ratio of player wages, transfers, and agent fees, limited to a percentage of revenue and profit from player sales. This ratio is gradually implemented over three seasons, starting at 90% in 2023/24. It does not include all wages but includes those of players, the head coach, bonuses, image rights, and termination payments. Transfer fees are included via player amortization. Chelsea's ratio for 2021/22 was 90%, influenced by profitable player sales. Projections indicate Chelsea's ratio improving in 2022/23 but exceeding 90% in 2023/24. Conclusion: Chelsea faces challenges in meeting both Premier League and UEFA's FFP regulations, especially in the 2023/24 season. Strategies to comply may involve negotiating with UEFA and accepting fines as a cost of doing business. The club's ability to participate in European competitions affects UEFA's FFP rules. Chelsea must improve their financial position to meet stricter UEFA requirements in the coming years.
Strategy There was a clear need for Chelsea to rejuvenate an ageing squad. Indeed, almost all of the new signings are fairly young, so there could be a lot of potential growth. The club will hope that these players continue to develop, thus further appreciate in value, despite some of the high prices paid. If they do want to sell a player, the theory is that they would be able to secure a good price, as it will be a very long time before the contract runs down, giving the club more security. In addition, if the club anticipates wage inflation, then it makes sense to lock down the players at current wages, rather than give raises as (shorter) contracts approach their end date. Risks However, the other side of the coin is that there are many risks associated with this strategy. There will be issues in terms of the number of players that Chelsea can register with the Premier League squad restricted to 25. The problem of who to leave out was already seen last season, when some players fell victim to UEFA’s regulation that a club can only register three new players for the Champions League knockout stages. That dilemma is a sign of things to come in terms of squad management. Graham Potter for one struggled to keep all of his players motivated during his ill-starred time in charge. Some players will be unhappy at not being picked for the first team (or even the match day squad). This challenge was underlined by Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp in a reference to their big spending, “You cannot have two dressing rooms, you cannot train on two pitches, you have to create relationships, you have to create team spirit, and that’s the only reason why I’m a little bit happy about it.” The odds are that not all of Chelsea’s new signings will be successes, so what happens to the flops? It will be far from straightforward to find another club to take such players off Chelsea’s hands at a similar level of wages, so transfer values could fall just as easily as increase. Even worse, the underperforming players might just sit there, happy to be trousering the cash, taking up valuable places in the squad. Chelsea fans will be all too familiar with the Winston Bogarde story. Conclusion While it has long been evident that talent acquisition is a core part of the strategies of leading clubs, Chelsea have really taken this to the extreme. Time will tell if Boehly’s strategy will be a success or whether it will end in tears. Chelsea have repeatedly stated that they will comply with financial fair play despite all of the big money buys. I’m not so sure that they will, but their massive spending does not automatically mean that they will fall foul of the regulations, especially if they maintain their profitable player trading model (assisted by the accounting treatment of transfers). The challenge in 2023/24 has obviously been made harder by their failure to qualify for Europe, while there remains a big question mark over a couple of their main sponsorships (shirt and sleeve). As it stands, it looks like they will be higher than the maximum allowed losses in 2023/24 for both sets of regulations (Premier League and UEFA), though much will depend on whether they are allowed to make a number of additional adjustments (as some other clubs have done). However, if push comes to shove, they can always improve matters by some more player sales. Even after shifting numerous players, there are still quite a few left that would generate decent money, especially the Academy products like Conor Gallagher, Trevor Chalobah, Callum Hudson-Odoi, Armando Broja and Ian Maatsen. Throw in a couple of out-of-favour players like Romelu Lukaku and Marc Cucurella and there are clearly gains that could still be made. Whether Chelsea’s approach is a good one for football is debatable. La Liga’s voluble president Javier Tebas pointed out the knock-on effect it has on other clubs, “It is quite dangerous that the markets are doped, inflated, as has been happening in recent years in Europe, because that can jeopardise the sustainability of European football.” It has also raised the bar in terms of transfer fees, as seen by this summer’s market. Despite the disquiet about the impact on the broader football world, Chelsea’s fans will be more concerned about whether the spending spree delivers success on the pitch.
