they were sold so the new guy must feel he can get away with it. The problem is they've spunked at least half that. Mendy Fofana Silva Koulibaly (not really any better than last year) James Kante Jorginho Cucurella (its just tuchel not fancying chillwell and owner deciding to stop city getting player, no improvement) Mount Havertz Sterling (I don't see much improvement here, esp not aubameyang whos not actually a 9) fofana 72mil with more addons? Cucurella 60mil - 10 mil more than brighton wanted FFS Sterling 50mil for a lad who didn't want to work hard at city Koulibaly 35 mil for a guy whos best is past and is not as good as the lad let go Chukwuemeka - 20 mil on a guy they will never play and was just bought cos he was a shiny thing at the time. Aubameyang 10-15 mil on a 33 year old left side forward to play 9. slonina - keeper no intent to ever use Zakaria - on lona for juve who knows if he will every play aka saul. 3mil sold werner for massive loss. sold emerson finally just sold gilmour and wahsed their face i think on the deal. what improved over last year? I'd argue they are not actually much better of and if anything just as imbalanced a side.
Poor planning and execution where I feel the club AND Klopp made some big mistakes. Really disappointing as it's another year of playing catch up and wasting the prime years of our best players.
FFP doesn't work. It isn't enforced. City and Chelsea blatantly ignore it by using giant loopholes and Everton broke it but fessed up about it so got a sympathetic..." Aww you're OK" from the authorities. The only ones punished by FfP are those who try to abide by it.
Is that what it is. You have to be Italian to be that bad... Not just play in Italy? Explains Balotelli.
I think they've quite probably increased the wage bill given the fees paid. but we will have to wait and see i suppose.
this is not what FFP covers however. Profit and loss. thats it. the amortisation of the players as a non tangible asset is only one aspect of profit and loss.
for the record cheslea posted losses of 146mil in 20/21 i can find 18/19 at 96mil loss. so what does this tell us? 110mil allowed over 3 years?????
Ffp covers spend… transfer spend is split over a players contract. you’ve contradicted yourself by saying it’s not what ffp covers o ku to then say it is included but only 1 aspect?
"FFP allows clubs to make a loss, which are made up by owners, of £105m over three years." (subject to rules like capital buildings etc) a clubs spending power is all their revenues plus 105mil over 3 years. what or how they spend it is then up the them. If a club like cheslea has made 105mil loss over 3 years then they get done. pure and simple. It's like this: A transfer deal does not match how a club writes down the asset usually. Cheslea buy fofana for 75 mil. and they now have an intangible asset worth 75mil on the books. They now amortise that over the 6 years at 12.5 mil a year. this goes onto the bookos and does its think to reduce the vlaue and all that good stuff and gets wrrteen down v tax. But Chelsea are not paying leicester 12.5mil per year over 6 years. they might have paid whatever up front. plus hwatver in 12 months or it could be all up front and that is then down on the books as a creditor due within 12months or above 12months etc. the point being chelsea take in cash in revenue streams of 500mil and choose to spent 200mil of it on players, another 300mil on wages and another 100mil of other expenses. they've lost 100mil over the year. FFP is not designed to stop a club spending its revenues. its designed to stop a saudi type take over spending 500mil in one year when theres no renvues to support it. cheslea have about 500mil of revenue. the new owner has in effect paid 4bil to write off all the holding company debt etc and cheslea start at zero debt. They don't get to start at zero for ffp. they lost 140mil 2 seasons ago. we don't know what they lost last season. so quite how they can spend 200mil on players this season is the question? At some point they have to hit their heads off the rules and be stopped up or the rules mean nothing. newcastle spent 136mil this summer. this is the only constraint that is stopping them right now being the third doping club in the prem. imo cheslea must be gambling the next 2 seasons on this spend as its impossible to do this again and not break ffp wide open.
Don’t disagree. All I’m saying it’s spending a **** load of money and spreading it over 7 year contracts that they were giving out, will help with ffp… more than spending a **** load fo spreading it out over the standard 4 year contracts.
You may find Chelsea would claim that sanctions led to a portion of any loss and thus they should be exempted from X amount .
Their scattergun transfer approach, signing anyone who would listen was rather bizarre. They no doubt improved their squad, but didn't make good business decisions.
