• Current Donation Goals

Sir

Official: Antonio Conte Appointed As New Manager

Recommended Posts

TV income has also gone up plus the premiums of winning the league but unfortunately the asking prices will have also to reflect that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Like most people I take what's in the press with a huge pinch of salt, but in my opinion I think that there are definitely a few issues knocking about between the club and Conte. I think he'll sign a new deal though. 

Edited by chelsea_matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jones   
15 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I may be overseeing someone now, but transfer league has us selling for £68m this season. Granted Salah and Perica are listed as 'undisclosed' but from the rumours Salah was what? £15-18m? 

Think it's worth mentioning those sales this season has been balanced out by £120m spent. 

 

I was talking about this summer. Begovic 10mp, Atsu 6.8mp, Cuadrado 17mp. And I would add the 53mp we got for Oscar and 6mp for Bamford on top of that. That's a total of 90mp+ recouped in player sales since last summer's window closed. We are likely to get around 30mp for Costa, and the rumoured fee for Traore is 15. Players like Piazon, Pasalic and Kalas have one year left and will by all accounts be sold, in addition to van Ginkel, and they should all generate around 25mp.

Winter transfers plus the players almost certain to be sold this summer gives us a total of 160mp+ in player sales. I would be shocked if the club was not ready to actually spend 100mp this summer, and with our revenues from player sales that could mean:

Lukaku 75mp
Sandro 60mp
Koulibaly 55mp
Bakayoko 40mp
Berardi 30mp
Caballero

Which is at least 260mp in outlay, and 100mp in net spend since Jan 1. Not exactly the most impressive war chest in today's market.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I'd be absolutely stunned if we spent anywhere near the £250-300m 'war chest' Prescott talks about. Mind you, he's been doing this since as long as I can remember, drawing £150m+ transfers out of the hat and mentioning shirt sales and sponsors. 

Just look at what our net spend has been over the last 11 seasons. That should give people some food for thought.

We spent double our norm last summer so I don't think it's crazy to assume anything we got in incomings last season is for balancing the books. 

Over the last 11 seasons we've averaged a net spend of £31m. That should give people some indications how likely it is we'll spend £200m in one go - unless we sell Hazard for £100m...

I'm not "drawing out of a hat".

Look at the official Premier League money list for this season. We made £38 million for winning the league and another £110 million from TV contract itself and the TV games.

Its not speculation. It's a matter of record.

Our shirt and training kit sponsorship brings in £110 million a year. That's also a matter of record.

Our Nike deal, £60 million a year. Matter of record. 

The £40 million we have already brought in this summer and the £60 million from Oscar, a matter of record.

So before you start spouting your egotistical arrogant bullshit, which is designed only to boost you and put down anyone who dares challenge you, look at the actual facts. 

We have all this money. Plus any more we bring in through sales. And we have a billionaire owner.

If a team which finished 7th is going to spend £150 million, then we can spend close to £300 million. It's called inflation, and it's what's necessary to stay at the top.

So stop trying to win the argument and make yourself look clever at anyone else's expense, and have a healthy discussion where you don't put others down.

I generally don't mute people. But if I did, you'd top the list. 

You aren't right all the time. You're not smarter than everyone else. And on a forum like this other people's opinions are as valid as yours whatever your personal opinion.

So instead of bullying and mocking others, follow the example of people like MT, and have a healthy discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, James Prescott said:

I'm not "drawing out of a hat".

Look at the official Premier League money list for this season. We made £38 million for winning the league and another £110 million from TV contract itself and the TV games.

Its not speculation. It's a matter of record.

Our shirt and training kit sponsorship brings in £110 million a year. That's also a matter of record.

Our Nike deal, £60 million a year. Matter of record. 

The £40 million we have already brought in this summer and the £60 million from Oscar, a matter of record.

So before you start spouting your egotistical arrogant bullshit, which is designed only to boost you and put down anyone who dares challenge you, look at the actual facts. 

We have all this money. Plus any more we bring in through sales. And we have a billionaire owner.

If a team which finished 7th is going to spend £150 million, then we can spend close to £300 million. It's called inflation, and it's what's necessary to stay at the top.

So stop trying to win the argument and make yourself look clever at anyone else's expense, and have a healthy discussion where you don't put others down.

I generally don't mute people. But if I did, you'd top the list. 

You aren't right all the time. You're not smarter than everyone else. And on a forum like this other people's opinions are as valid as yours whatever your personal opinion.

So instead of bullying and mocking others, follow the example of people like MT, and have a healthy discussion. 


Just taking one at random...

Shirt sponsorship is £40m/year. Are you suggesting we get £70m/year for the training kit sponsorship?

You are indeed plucking figures from a hat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James Prescott said:

I'm not "drawing out of a hat".

Look at the official Premier League money list for this season. We made £38 million for winning the league and another £110 million from TV contract itself and the TV games.

Its not speculation. It's a matter of record.

Our shirt and training kit sponsorship brings in £110 million a year. That's also a matter of record.

Our Nike deal, £60 million a year. Matter of record. 

The £40 million we have already brought in this summer and the £60 million from Oscar, a matter of record.

So before you start spouting your egotistical arrogant bullshit, which is designed only to boost you and put down anyone who dares challenge you, look at the actual facts. 

We have all this money. Plus any more we bring in through sales. And we have a billionaire owner.

If a team which finished 7th is going to spend £150 million, then we can spend close to £300 million. It's called inflation, and it's what's necessary to stay at the top.

So stop trying to win the argument and make yourself look clever at anyone else's expense, and have a healthy discussion where you don't put others down.

I generally don't mute people. But if I did, you'd top the list. 

You aren't right all the time. You're not smarter than everyone else. And on a forum like this other people's opinions are as valid as yours whatever your personal opinion.

So instead of bullying and mocking others, follow the example of people like MT, and have a healthy discussion. 

All revenue we make won't go to transfer fees James. We've made a lot of money in the past as well yet only had a average net spend of £31m. 

I should have remembered that as soon as someone tries to argue with you you get aggressive. I won't make that same mistake again. 

Enjoy the summer. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

I think there are lots of factors in how much we will spend and who comes in. I have a feeling that Conte will be looking for players who fit with his "Chelsea Family" concept. I remember him saying when he first arrived that he needed players who would "fight to win or fight to the end to win" by which I think he meant players who are 100% committed to the club. A number of the players have commented positively on the "family" club thing recently. They also seem to like the monthly meals and other things. In fact, on the whole, they seem a happy squad. I think that's why Conte decided Costa would not be part of the plan going forward.

The club will want to try to control costs. Despite the additional income, costs are rising at an equivalent rate. I suspect they will also take into account the needs of the academy. Some of the young players on loan will leave, but I suspect because the player wants to move on rather than the club wanting to realise on its investment. The loan army is a revenue generating business. I expect that next season we will see as many if not more players on loan all over Europe and in our leagues. As costs spiral, having a quality academy setup could be a key factor in the future (as long as we don't pretend that any but a tiny minority will ever play for our first team).

I suspect that Conte will have worked with the club to draw up a list of the players that fit the profile he needs. I think he is targeting a striker and midfielder and, maybe, someone at the back. I think he is also seeking to fill out the squad with depth. If Costa goes we will need two strikers at least, but I think it will be Lukaku and Batshuayi. I think Tammy is not ready and will go to Newcastle or Brighton. I think Conte will continue with the 3-4-3 next season but will use two up front more often especially against weaker opposition or when we are chasing a game. If both strikers are injured/fatigued he will resort to playing his AMs like he did last season. I also think Kante will be encouraged further forward more. I think Baker will be part of the squad but I think RLC might go on loan. I think Conte will strengthen the deep lying central area by bringing in Bayayoko with Chalobah and Cesc, I'm not sure about Matic. I think the WBs will be unchanged (Alonso, Moses, Kenedy and Aina,). For defence, we will have Luiz, Cahill, Zouma, Azpi and Ake, I think he'll bring back Christensen with a possible remaining slot for someone coming in. I think we will see more rotation in both the WBs and the back three. GKs? Maybe Caballero but what about Shay Given? He's would be free.

GK: TC/Eduardo/Caballero  or Given

Defenders: Luiz/Cahill/Azpi/Zouma/Ake/Christensen/?????

WBs: Moses/Aina/Alonso/Kenedy

DMF: Chalobah/Cesc/Bayayoko

MF: Kante/Baker/RLC

AMF: Willian/Hazard/Pedro/Musonda

S: Batshuayi/Lukaku

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Post.

50 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

The club will want to try to control costs. Despite the additional income, costs are rising at an equivalent rate.

Not sure.  Around 2012, the club bought a lot of young players as a kind of bet that player values were about to jump - it largely chose good players and made some good money on some, and got the likes of Oscar, Hazard, Courtois into the club too.
We now seem light on recently bought young talent, and I wouldn't be surprised if we splurged again.
Generally when clubs see good times ahead, they jump out and splash the cash early.

41 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

The loan army is a revenue generating business

No way.

How many players do we get a net loan fee for - so that the borrowing club is paying more than their wages?
Most of our loan kids are on wages that the best 3 or 4 players in their new teams are on, there is no way the likes of Rotherham, Bristol City, Granada or Vitesse are covering player wages in full.
And for every transfer sale success, there must be 2 or 3 major failures, like McEachran who must have cost us £7 or £8m in wages and wage subsidies when on loan.

To be fair though, the loan army mostly represents the failures - players who aren't yet good enough for the first team.  And it does help us sort the wheat from the chaff.  Allowing us to decide whether that promising 20 yo deserves another 3 years at £40k a week?  or should be let go if he demands more than £10k.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

I don't think net loan fees are what its about (not wholly). Its about the increased value of players in the transfer market compared to the cost of maintaining those players (collectively) during the training and loan period. If we buy a Ryan Bertrand for £250K and sell for £10m that's significantly more than the cost of maintaining that player over the period of 7 loans or whatever it was. It does not always work but it only has to work a few times to pay for itself. I agree that for every success there would be a number of failures (Personally, I suspect more than 2 or 3).

However, I cannot quantify because I have no idea what our loan kids are paid compared to players from the loaning clubs. I suspect its less than we are told. Neither do I know how much McEachran was paid. After all, a players salary is a private matter and that its in an agents interest to claim larger salaries for players than they actually get. Newspapers also exaggerate these things. In fact, none of us really know what sums are actually involved.  My basis for saying that it generates revenue is that I suspect that if it did not then clubs like Monaco, Atletico, Besiktas, Sporting, Milan, Udinese, Inter, Atalanta, Verona, Juve and Parma would not be doing the same, in some cases much more than Chelsea. To me, that's the proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that the profits are mostly on the transfers, but McEachran was widely reported to be on 35K a week, and he was still a club employee until 2015, 4 whole years after his "breakthrough" season under CA when he had 17 appearances.  We sold him for 750K, which meant most of the Bertrand profit was matched by Josh loss.  I don't want to pick on him, there are plenty of others too.  Piazon must have cost us as much, on top of his transfer fee (7m if I recall).  Few of van Aanholt's loans would have covered his costs.  Solanke will have cost us - even though he never got a really big contract as he wanted.  


While we can pretend we don't know the exact details of their wages, we do know that some of our youngsters are on 5k or 10k a week without getting close to the first team (and a few on significantly more).  And we do know that senior pros at clubs in say Div 1, lower championships teams and most clubs in Europe (except about 20 or 30) are on much the same wages.
There is no way that loan fees are anything but exceptions to the rule.

A lot of Italian clubs buy and loan players there - it is common practice.  The lower leagues are full of loanees there.  But then most Italian clubs are paying their first team regulars peanuts.  The buy and loan players must be on pretty small money - the economics there are quite different.
The total revenues of Serie A clubs is just under half that of PL clubs.  Juve take as much as any of our clubs except Man U, and 4 or 5 clubs have PL like revenues.  The bottom half though are far poorer.  They pay Championship wages or less to their regular players and much less to loan players.

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