• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5361864/chelsea-buy-scottish-club-fifa-loan-rules/amp/

Not too sure how true this is but I have always been surprised Roman hasn't tried something like this yet. 

Personally, I am not too sure about the level of Scottish football but it would be one way to keep such a large amount of players on the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rob B   
8 hours ago, King Kante said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5361864/chelsea-buy-scottish-club-fifa-loan-rules/amp/

Not too sure how true this is but I have always been surprised Roman hasn't tried something like this yet. 

Personally, I am not too sure about the level of Scottish football but it would be one way to keep such a large amount of players on the books.

Deary me.  These new loan rules only affect players 22 years old and over, and you’re still going to be allowed 8 (we currently have 15)

How about we just concentrate on financially backing Frank to improve the first team, whilst developing the academy players we already have (which also happens to be the best in the country!) 

And instead of stockpiling players like cattle, continue to go out and buy the best young talent around (Ampadu and Gilmour etc) and if they need a loan a) they’re under 22 anyway and b) we’re doing it with a genuine interest in their development and pathway to the first team

If these new rules mean we spend less time and money on the likes of Miazga, Kennedy, Nathan, Piazon etc (respectfully) then I’m all for it 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob B said:

If these new rules mean we spend less time and money on the likes of Miazga, Kennedy, Nathan, Piazon etc (respectfully) then I’m all for it 

So I generally agree that 

Kenedy joined at 19 and immediately went into (an admittedly very small) first team squad. 
Nathan also at 19.  Piazon at 17 and he made his sole appearance at 18.
So these 3 at least, were genuine attempts at buying good players young, but it is a numbers game, and there will be some misses.

(You may have implied this) the issue seems to be about extending contracts on players who are 21-23 but haven't broken through yet.  And of course this issue is a big understated problem in running a youth development program.  What to do about the inbetweeners.  Venture capitalists call this kind of asset the zombie companies, not growing fast enough to justify further investment of time and money, but not doing badly enough to justify closing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rob B said:

Deary me.  These new loan rules only affect players 22 years old and over, and you’re still going to be allowed 8 (we currently have 15)

How about we just concentrate on financially backing Frank to improve the first team, whilst developing the academy players we already have (which also happens to be the best in the country!) 

And instead of stockpiling players like cattle, continue to go out and buy the best young talent around (Ampadu and Gilmour etc) and if they need a loan a) they’re under 22 anyway and b) we’re doing it with a genuine interest in their development and pathway to the first team

If these new rules mean we spend less time and money on the likes of Miazga, Kennedy, Nathan, Piazon etc (respectfully) then I’m all for it 

A couple of things. First, I was unaware of the 22 year old age limit which admittedly is an oversight and I agree with what you say regarding the elder players. 

Second, I think there is still some merit to this, in that any such club could essentially be our academy by proxy and allow the young players to have experience of men's competitive football and European football (Ropey League/Conference League) from a young age. That is surely better than having them play youth football and loaning them out as the club could start to implement having favoured systems that the boys are grounded in from a very young age like Barca.

The very best young talent would still come to us at a young age I.e. CHO. 

Edited by King Kante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like BS to me, it would involve having all new top quality training facilities and an entire new coaching staff. All for something that could easily be outlawed by a new rule in the near future. I imagine there are FFP regulations to prevent such an occurrence. It would also probably be inefficient in terms of taxes paid, and the only way it would help balance the books at Chelsea is if the players could be bought from scotland and sold (not loaned) on in the same window, which I don't think is allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where to put this:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/manchester-city-anger-fans-by-charging-season-ticket-holders-despite-fixture-uncertainty-05dn2scv8
 

Quote

Manchester City have been criticised by their own fans after the club decided against suspending direct debit payments for season ticket holders.

Many supporters have fallen on hard times because of the coronavirus pandemic, but City said today that the final direct debit payment for season ticket holders would come out of their bank accounts tomorrow as planned.

City will therefore pocket many thousands of pounds from fans even though it is uncertain that the club’s six remaining home Premier League fixtures will go ahead or be open to fans.

Are Chelsea doing the same?  Other clubs?

You would have thought that City, recently the big moneybags, and with I guess relatively newer season ticket holders than most, would be the last club to try this on.

I'm hoping to conclude that with the oil price near $20, the funding has been turned off.  Certainly Etihad airlines isn't able to sponsor them to the same tune anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Droy was my hero said:

Not sure where to put this:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/manchester-city-anger-fans-by-charging-season-ticket-holders-despite-fixture-uncertainty-05dn2scv8
 

Are Chelsea doing the same?  Other clubs?

You would have thought that City, recently the big moneybags, and with I guess relatively newer season ticket holders than most, would be the last club to try this on.

I'm hoping to conclude that with the oil price near $20, the funding has been turned off.  Certainly Etihad airlines isn't able to sponsor them to the same tune anymore.

Chelsea do not do direct debts for anything other than away season tickets for the CL and PL and these are year to year rather than rolling. Home Season tickets are sold either as a one off payment upfront or via finance that is needs to be agreed each year. 

Edited by King Kante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Kante said:

Chelsea do not do direct debts for anything other than away season tickets for the CL and PL and these are year to year rather than rolling. Home Season tickets are sold either as a one off payment upfront or via finance that is needs to be agreed each year. 

I’m in both and the finance for the home ST is paid via monthly direct debit to the chosen finance provider. 
 

Away ST’s are paid, as you say via direct debit to the club. 
 

Both are paid back via 6 or 7 direct debit payments. 
 

Only difference between us and Man City is that STH’s have already paid in full and for both the home and away versions. 
 

Still no news from Chelsea as to how they may proceed or even acknowledging they have this issue to deal with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, East Lower said:

I’m in both and the finance for the home ST is paid via monthly direct debit to the chosen finance provider. 
 

Away ST’s are paid, as you say via direct debit to the club. 
 

Both are paid back via 6 or 7 direct debit payments. 
 

Only difference between us and Man City is that STH’s have already paid in full and for both the home and away versions. 
 

Still no news from Chelsea as to how they may proceed or even acknowledging they have this issue to deal with. 

Yeah, I have a home ST. However, I think with other clubs they set up direct debits for ST on a rolling basis until you cancel so other teams have been taking the money for season 2020/21. That is not really applicable to us.

As for the last few games we have left for this season, I do not expect to hear anything from the club until the season is officially voided as cannot do anything atm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absent a Timo Werner thread I thought I put this here.
It demonstrates my point that you don't get a player cheap just because he is on a release clause.
You pay enough Agent's fee, starting bonus and extra high wages to outbid any other bidder in the market.

No idea if this source is genuine, but it reads as if it is in the right ball park - £12m agents fee & £450k a week.

Quote

In an eye-popping report from Kieran Maguire during the financial crisis caused by Covid-19, it’s been confirmed that Timo Werner’s agent, Karlheinz Förster, netted £12 million from the Chelsea deal.

It’s further been reported that “the release clause on the contract is £52 million.”

Also, Werner’s wages will shoot up to £9 million a year.

Should Werner complete his five-year contract at Stamford Bridge, Chelsea will end up paying a total bill of £109 million – and that’s before bonuses.

101gg rewrite is here.

 

So it works out at not much lower than 2019 prices I reckon.  Not many clubs can afford that.  Guardiola I heard says he can't afford to replace Sane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now