It was interesting this morning the number of reporters essentially subtweeting him saying he was someone who should not be listened to. You dont tend to see that sort of ITK on ITK violence.
1 Like
Fabrizio just dropped an X?
We told him to split it in two, butā¦
The Wages come under FFP as well. Anyway, I was wrong that Kepa is on 250k , heās on 150k. Thatās 7.8M off of the wage bill. That and a loan fee of 5-10M.
Chelsea are desperate right now, They still have Lukaku and his wages eating into their bill.
at what point do brighton say enough is enough - lfcs bid is final an thats it.
they played today and said they wanted it sorted before therir season starts.
The theory doing the rounds is its a profit and loss calculation not FFP issue stopping them.
the profit and loss calculation boils down to FFP.
How are they not one and the same thing?
Keep in mind that UEFA no longer uses FFP but a much simplified version that simply limits club spending to % of revenue
1 Like
Imagine how much Boehly is willing to lose in order to get Caicedo.
Daft Prickās a good name for him.
2 Likes
They just thumped the mighty Luton without Caicedo or 110mil+. Theyāre probably the most relaxed party in all of this drama.
Itās funny though how many Chelsea fans on Twitter are calling us a small club due to the supposed hijack of Caicedo + Lavia.
Nobody tell them the net spend table isnāt the same as the PL table. Let them figure it out in a few years.
Its explained better by Mo Chatra on twitter https://twitter.com/slbsn/status/1690075269971755009?t=rf7Bmqj7qh6bJbTMW7cQbw&s=19
1 Like
Chelsea fans seemingly are only in twitter/x.
a putrid online cesspit being a place where Chelsea fans frequent. As close to stamford bridge as it gets then
2 Likes
Since they are not in europe this season, if they were to exceed spending limits how would that play out?I remember something from a rew years ago suggesting if a club were to overspend then itās better when not playing in europe for a season or so.
Wages and transfer fee are both counted for FFP so say Chelsea go to 105 that leaves around 5 mil a year for wages which is about 96k a week; a wage we can match or beat for someone weād be looking to have long term. If the transfer is 100 mil that leaves Chelsea 10/11 a year for his wage, which is about 192/211k a week and an amount we wouldnt pay a 21 year old.
Take into account their initial plan of Caicedo and Adams for a combined 100, thatād leave them with 10/11 mil in wages to split between the two; i.e. 7 a year for caicedo as a star signing and 4 a year for adams as a back up from a relegated team. Then consider the change in plan: 100 mil to Brighton and 10 mil on the wage; a wage we would never match. Seems plausible that 110/111 mil is their total allowed spending currently.
If weāve guessed their FFP limit correctly and 111mil their absolute limit then weāve offered an amount that if Chelsea simply cannot provide him with a wage without breaching FFP.
1 Like
Im just going off this
A relatively simple explanation because many have asked: Chelsea need something like Ā£450m profit (could even be more) from 22/23 and 23/24 player trading to balance the allowable trading loss over the last 3 years (conservatively). I reckon they did around Ā£100m player trading profit in 22/23 with around another Ā£75m so far from Mount, Pulisic, PEA, Livermento sell on profit and Ampadu.
Amortisation rises when you buy and does not fall if you sell a youth player for a pure profit.
So Caciedo, Lavia and Olise will add not only, say, Ā£35m of amortisation in 23/24 but also, say, Ā£25m of wages.
Thatās more than the likely trading profit of selling Gallagher and Hudson Odoi although assume maybe Ā£12.5m wage saving. But they needed that for the existing deficit before Caciedo etc.
This leaves Chalabah and Broja as profit opportunities. Most of the rest are at best neutral in terms of profits - Ziyech could lose quite a lot, Kepa neutral, Cucurella has a book value so high he canāt be sold for profit, Sterling the same.
So they are many Ā£10s of millions short of break even under PL P&S in 23/24 even if they managed to just about comply in 22/23 (which Iām skeptical about too).
But, itās been mentioned before-breaching these rules doesnāt matter.
10 million on the wages comes to around 208k per week. I donāt think thatās something we would not match. That said, I agree with the rest of your post.
They do matter otherwise Chelsea would have blown us out of the park with a 140m offer.
Youāll notice they are entirely bluetick so you wonder if this lot are paid bots. You have to scroll a bit to find anyone without one and saying more than 3 words or without ābroā or that horrible racist term I wonāt repeat here but for some reason think itās acceptable.