He’s not even the first choice keeper for Spain I think.
He’s decent enough and has got better since he skied that penalty he was actually rather better in Spain. It’s just another major gap they have to fill mind as their replacement isn’t that good and the reserve lads look about 17.
Oh and one of them look scared of the ball when I watched them
He isnt, because he’s been shit at Chelsea. Few would deny that. But people in Spain still remember him for how highly rated he was from his time at Bilbao prior to going there.
2 Likes
Just checking in to say the past couple of days have reaffirmed my belief that Chelsea are the biggest cunts in world football. I viscerally loathe every single atom of that football club.
3 Likes
Yeah but take solace they will be hovering around the relegation places in January
They are a mishmash of a club…
Looking at Tranfermarkt, Chelsea have had 18 departures and 16 arrivals (including all loan activity), thus have trimmed their “bloated quad” by a net 2.
1 Like
I wonder if that’s why they’re rushing to spend now…knowing a transfer ban is coming down the pipe 
1 Like
Surely that’s counterproductive! They should be stopped earlier
I was watching video by Tifo Football and it said that the long-term deals aren’t allowed anymore from this window. It said UEFA will allow the conventional five-years deals and will allow an extra year in case the player is young. So, how come Chelsea is still allowed to sign players on 7-8 years contract? Also, I have noticed that only Chelsea is doing this.
Does anyone have any information in this issue.
@Arminius has written about this before but essentially, UEFA’s rules don’t prevent clubs from giving long term deals like this, what they do is fix the maximum number of years the club can ‘amortize’ or ‘spread the payments over’ to I think a maximum of six. So UEFA will treat contracts of 6 years and 8 years the same for FFP purposes.
The following is taken from blue lion on redcafe Moises transfer…perhaps someone with better understanding can explain if he is correct, because they seem to think they are not breaching anything.
"Their finances are “fecked” eh?
The arm of Clearlake related to investment in sporting and entertainment are always accepting new investment from vetted, non-public funds. The truly inept English media made this out as desperation looking for money for transfers; no.
Clearlake just dropped 700m on the Canary Wharf development. The are inviting in other parties to do nothing short of owning and transforming that area of London. They have vision much larger in scale than just owning Chelsea.
Their finances are fine. They are extremely smart and good with money, especially as it pertains to sporting activities and caps.
THEY found the irregularities from more than a decade ago under Abramovich. They were minor things, and the way the seizure and sale of the the club happened they have no chance of facing penalties for this, but the interesting thing is the regulatory authorities didn’t understand what was wrong even after it was shown to them… it had to be explained.
They have already set aside the first part of the 850 m related to the stadium in a special separate account.
They have their French club, and will soon have a Portugal club to start filling out their talent development umbrella.
Chelsea was already light years ahead of other PL teams in terms of making money off player development and sales… and even then Clearlake looked at it and thought it was haphazard and way underleveraged.
They have a setup to handle “flops” and the financial terms of the different contracts reflect that. They also have insurance that covers catastrophic loss (see: Fofana). I saw some people saying “well, one person gets hurt and they are broke, done!”
Doesn’t work that way.
If Chalobah and Gallagher move on this year we might even spend MORE this window… pretty easily actually.
And if they don’t work out we have the most talented young players in the world (see: Cesarean Casadei; Golden Ball winner from U21 Euros) 3 and 4 deep at every position spread out in our growing system to take those spots OR to make even more profit as we develop them Into high earning pros for other teams.
A misconception is that every one of these talents is being sold just on the idea of playing for Chelsea. No. We can sell a superior structure led by people with track records for developing young players into high earning professionals."
If they can’t amortize the fee over (let’s say) eight years, what’s point of giving such a long contract? Here’s what I think. Though all these new players will get 2-3 times of their previous salaries and hefty performance related bonuses, it’s still not a huge sum. So, their salaries wouldn’t be an issue whether Chelsea wants to sell them or keep them. Basically, they have reengineered they loan business.
Cash flow. You commit to paying them a larger wage but as this is spread over the length of their longer contract, on a per year basis, at least early on, it doesn’t have such a big impact.
Several other clubs have the same set up though.
It’s not that Clearlake don’t have money, we know they do, it’s the fact they have to make it work under FFP.
He thinks what his club is doing is clever but it’s not really it’s standard.
1 Like
Yeah but found it interesting about the previous owners etc and then presenting it to the fa …and then had to explain it to them😂
If that’s true how can we expect the people who make the rules to ever execute them if they don’t understand what their own rules mean?
They might be correct on some of it - I think the breaches they are being investigated for are historical - (they won’t have hit a full reporting period under the current owners?), and Clear Lake probably do have ambitions greater than Chelsea. However, there are a number of inconsistencies across what they have written, and clearly doing from a biased perspective - it’s pretty unlikely their youth squad has quality in every position 4 deep - @Sweeting has even talked about it being lower in quality than it has been in the past.
I would think all clubs have their players insured - although perhaps here it is clear lake doing the insuring and maybe they have taken some steps to inflate the value at which the club may be reimbursed compared to what other insurers would pay out?
As for flops, I’m not so sure they are set up to weather a storm if several players flop. It will obviously depend on how many flops they have, who they offload and for how much, and the structure of the contracts but much of the money spent on deals appears to be guaranteed payments to selling clubs and relatively high wages - it’s going to require stronger revenues to mitigate any future impact, especially when the rules around spending on wages tighten up.
As for misconceptions and strawmen, I don’t think anyone has ever said youngsters have been signed on the idea of playing for Chelsea - it’s always been the money.
1 Like
Thats often an issue with financial crimes though. New schemes and wheezes are always being thought up and the bodies responsible for overseeing the landscape often don’t have the time or resources to keep up.
But nothing ever comes of this. Slap on the wrist and they carry on per usual.
1 Like
It would be the PL not the FA.
Also not sure what Clearlake are doing there but CW isn’t in the best of health.
Can actually see it struggling still further. Seemed a bit ghostly pre pandemic to be honest.
1 Like