How Chelsea Have Been Able To SPEND So Much! | Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2023
- Just six months on from breaking the British transfer record with the £107million signing of Enzo Fernandez, Chelsea broke it again to sign another midfield prodigy, Moises Caicedo, beating rivals Liverpool to his signature and rubbing salt into the wounds of Jürgen Klopp by also securing the Reds’ back-up option Romeo Lavia. With Caicedo arriving from Brighton in a deal worth £115million, and Lavia signing from Southampton for a fee that could rise to £58million, Chelsea have now spent over £330million (£334M) on central midfielders alone since Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital took over the club in 2022.
Their overall spending in the transfer market has now reached £950million if you include potential add-ons, almost half of what Roman Abramovich spent on transfers in nearly two decades as the club’s owner. And just as Abramovich changed the face of English football with his unprecedented flurry of big money signings on arrival at Stamford Bridge in 2003, Boehly’s strategy of overloading the squad with young, expensive talent has raised more than a few eyebrows and has once again brought up the question of financial fair play in the sport.
In an age where Premier League wealth has increasingly dominated the European transfer market, with the Saudi Pro League now arguably its biggest rival, Chelsea’s recruitment project has been outrageous even by English standards, with no other Prem side spending as much as half of what the Blues have splashed out since 2022. Last year they were even placed on an FFP watchlist by UEFA owing to the size of their financial losses, but it hasn’t stopped them continuing their strategy.
So how have they been able to do this without breaching spending rules? And how long can they carry on their current course? On today’s FD Explained, we’re heading to Stamford Bridge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🟢: Subscribe to Football Daily: bit.ly/fdsubscribe
🐦: Tweet us: bit.ly/3fiHO53
📸: Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/3LQGSB1
📱: Follow us on TikTok: bit.ly/3dKgJY2
🧵: Follow us on Threads: www.threads.net/@footballdail...
🎙️: Listen to the Extra Time Podcast: bit.ly/3moyeMO
🗣️: Join the Discord (run by the fans, for the fans): / discord
💛: Drop us a follow on Snap: bit.ly/3LKFmjX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
⬇️ Our Panellists ⬇️
Joe: / joethomlinson
Pat: / patrickbvs
Zac: / zacdjellab
Dougs: / dougiecritchley
McCubbs: / mikemccub
Sam: / _samobaseki
Henry: / henry_hill94
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Football Daily: for fans who know Premier League ball.
On this channel you'll find our weekly panel shows, football quizzes, tactical breakdowns, big match previews/reviews, fantasy football tips, top tens and much, much more.
Your one stop shop to be the most clued up fan around.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#premierleague #footballdaily #footballanalysis 
Спорт
we gave them 65 for king Kai I can't even question it😭
Now I dont have to spend my time thinking about "what is Havertz's best position?".
It's arsenal fans'problem now. 😂
@@kth6736 he is the biggest scam in football that man
@@kth6736 broooo 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 . Including mount 🤣
It’s extremely risky, I don’t know why so many people are complaining…they can all do it if they like
exactly
Chelsea have already given everyone else the blueprint to do THE SAME if they want to
Funny that, guaranteed you was one of those complaining when city bought grealish for 100m.. 😅 caisedo for 115 is unbelievably dumb.
@@colincolin5696But it was fine for Liverpool to steal him for 110m right?
@@fpl_djhammerThe blue print already existed. This is standard business practice. It's just that in football, Chelsea are doing it on a larger scale than previously seen.
@@colincolin5696 what? I don’t support Chelsea or City, it’s just the truth. Stop crying about it, everyone is allowed to do it
The only thing the video missed is that when Clearlake bought Chelsea, 2B was for the team and 2.25B was for squad investment and the stadium. So they are using money they had during the purchase set aside for investment
everyone forgets this, thats 2bil of profit for the club to spend. people can moan nut having the owner forced to sell has to have some perks. thankfully abram loved the club and made sure they would have some spending money
@@StoenBrey That is not how that works at all. You can't just say I promise to spend 2 billion on a team and that goes on your profit sheet????
Firstly they vowed to spend that over 10 years, not 1 or 2. And it was a method of keeping chelsea relatively where they've been, competitive, it has NOTHING to do with FFP. It's basically just saying 'hey promise us you'll actually act like Chelsea normally do and not just buy the club and abandon it'
They still have to contend with FFP normally, they DO NOT have 2 billion pounds of pure profit on the books from being sold. The operating of the club is going normally, the reason you're spending so much is because you sell so well, mainly from the academy, nothing to do with the sale.
The ONLY way the sale would help any FFP case is because the clubs debts would be wiped out. And Chelsea had ZERO interest payments because all your loans were from Abramovich. Essentially, you weren't paying for your loans before, so them being wiped out doesn't really matter either.
You're spending so much because you're currently spending future transfer budgets, essentially. You're banking on getting a very young and good team together now so you don't have to spend in the future. The risk is, if the team doesn't pan out, you've already spent that money. Your amortisation is going to be somewhere around £150-200m per year at this rate. So in future transfer windows, you'll go into them as if you've already spend £150m for like the next 8 or 9 years because of how long these contracts are.
They didn't miss it, it's irrelevant. The money clearlake vowed to spend over the next 10 years doesn't affect your balance books or FFP. It's just him saying 'yes I'll keep the team competitive financially'
@@Panjax I get that but what I am saying is Chelsea’s books are relatively healthy and they’re making a BIG bet on current and future success. But the balance sheet isn’t going to put us into the negative with FFP was the point I was making. I am arguing that it seems like they are spending money they have and how they balance it and report will be on the ownership and the directors
At the end of the day owners should be allowed to invest and spend what they want, it is their club after all
Take out T Silva and the average age will be less than 22
no it won‘t. back to math class
-Starting each season with a deficit of 130 mil
-Unbalanced squad
-Tier 2 manager
-growing league with more top 4 challengers than ever
Yeah, it's not looking good bruv.
They need EVERYTHING to go right if they want it to come good.
Already got multiple players injured.
Another season without UCL( I think they will finish 3/4 this season) and they'll be going down the Everton route.
Only thing Chels needs now is a bigger stadium
Won’t be for a few years now but hopefully the planning permission moves quicker cause of the previous planning being accepted
Boelhy and co seem to be on it. I expect work to start within 5 years and stadium to be ready in about 10 years.
Not if they go down the the Championship
@@davidcoomber4050 no. We'll stay up easily. Luton, Everton and Burnley are worse.
The long contracts are never going to be a problem. These players are on such low wages that they will be easy to shift should the need arise.
Santos is on £40k, Lavia is on £75k, Jackson is on £80k, Mudryk on £97k, Enzo is on £104k and Caicedo on £145k.
All these players total up to less than what Chelsea were paying Kante at £290k and Havertz at £250k.
The only risk is if a player becoming injury prone like Fofana. Then it will be difficult to sell.
Of that list only Santos' wages are "low" (by PL standards). For comparison nobody in Brentford or Luton's squads get paid that much.
@@tomspreadbury2915Brentford and Luton are not Big6 teams.
By Big6 standards these wages are very low. Mount is on £250k at manutd and Haverts on £325k at arsenal.
@@kth6736 Also incorrect. The average wage of a player at Spurs is 50-55k, at Liverpool it's 75-80k, at Arsenal it's 80-85k. Man Utd are terrible with money and City/Chelsea's average wages are waaaaaaaayyyy bigger than other PL sides. In fact, Villa, Palace and WHU have a comparable wage budget to Spurs and Liverpool.
Stop kidding yourself.
@@tomspreadbury2915 you can delude yourself all you want by counting academy wages. Doesnt make 100k a high PL wage.
@@kth6736 no academy wages included.
Thanks for this video. It has really helped me understand amortisation. 😂
Very interesting
Maybe the Premier league have not undertaken UEFA's amortisation rules, but looking at UEFA's rules to financial sustainability it suggests to get a UEFA license to qualify for the following season's competitions all rules must be followed. Now, Chelsea may determine they would take it to court, but I would not suspect 19 other owners would back them. Especially if they finish in UCL spot.
I don't think Chelsea are planning to go to court, they feel they can play within the rules. The profits feom the academy seem like they are not going to disapeer anytime soon and in the immediate term, they clearly knew Saudi would buy some ageing stars at good prices. The Saudis are invested in Chelsea so its not to much of a conspiracy theory to say Chelsea owners would have already known who they would sell and for how much.
The PLs rules don't need to be as stringent as EUFAs as clubs need to fall in line with EUFAs rules no matter what. They will be fined for breaking them or banned from EUFA competitions whether or not they make it into them via league positions.
LaLiga rules go much further than EUFAs but that was at the behest of Real and Barca who were scared of seeing a Chelsea or a City pop up in la liga. The rules they had implemented were later the very reason Barcelona couldn't keep Messi and now have had to sell future revenues, so it serves them right.
That's what you get being protectionist and preventing investment.
@@outofthetrash5925 No, the Saudi's are not invested in Chelsea. That was already looked into during the sale. Saudi's have money invested in clearlake capital, and every other big hedge fund in the world.
Completely different. Chelsea literally sold 2 players to saudi clubs for about £35m, even Liverpool have made more from Saudi. Enough with the garbage conspiracy theories.
Tottenham are one of the clubs that have been alerted to the availability of Portuguese winger Jota, 24, only two months after becoming Al-Ittihad's club record signing
Manchester United have contacted Chelsea over a possible loan for Spain full-back Marc Cucurella
What a breathtaking analysis!!!!!
You haven’t even watched the video
@@GIBBO4182 I am commenting as I watch. the first 4 mins were breathtaking enough to warrant a comment
@@livinusokoz306BS, just fishing for likes or a ❤️
You posted this comment like minutes after the video was uploaded… don’t lie for some likes. Weird
@@colincolin5696 I guess that’s what you would do, lie for likes. Well, I am not like you. I have better things to do. I got notified for that video seconds after posting and I put in my comment 3-4 mins into the video which is almost half of the entire thing. So what’s your point?
The real problem chelsea have going forward is that they'll need to sell another 150m worth of players EVERY year for the next 5 years just to keep the net transfer spend level (at a very simple view, as that ignores lower wages and lower tv income etc). And they'll also have less academy players to sell then, meaning they'll need to make a profit (or sell for more than 80% of what they bought roughly) if they actually want to bank any money.
I get in the short term they've been able to amortise payments and that
So this summer it looks like they've made profit with their outgoings. But they'll have those commitment payments for the upcoming years. Is that not when it becomes problematic as they would need consistent big outgoings?
Other clubs also have “commitment payments” with their huge debts so why is chelsea’s an issue?
The difference is the vast amount lol.
They haven’t made a profit through? The players they’ve sold they’ve also lost HUGE amounts of money on, most of them have been sold for less than HALF of what they paid for them…
@@LetsTalkFootball123the majority have been a profit. Chelsea only lost money on Koulibaly and we lost a small amount on Mendy but the rest was profit. Havertz, Kovacic, Mount, Hall and I can’t remember who else were profit
@@AbdulBhe never said it’s an issue. He gave an example of something they might run into, stop thinking there’s an agenda against them.
I still don't understand why people think mason mount is Cobham best ever play that they have produced. Acting like Andreas Christensen, Ruben, Reece and Levi colwil. In fact he's the worse player that has come from Cobham.
That is not true at all. Christensen has been a decent player, but the only time he was an undisputed starter was his loan in the Bundesliga. Ruben has always been injury prone and you could say that his whole career he has had one good season, which was under Sarri. Reece maybe, but hes injury prone so its hard to measure that. And we still dont know about Colwill though he looks really good. Mount is good and so far has been the most successful of the Cobham graduates in terms of playing time/trophies.
Tbh Big Tod has absolutely clowned other owners in the prem. He has completely rebuilt Chelsea's squad all within the space of 12-18 months all within the rules that have been here for years. Btw it took man utd 4 years to sign 1 DM
Chelsea would need to win the quadruple. Anything else is a failure
Boosted by 2 factors though.
One is the ability to sell academy graduates for high fees
Two was having Saudi clubs there to buy a number of players at fees that more than covered their amortised values.
The first one is as a result of good work over a long period of time.
The second one is clearly available because of Saudi investment into Chelsea and so signing the players for their "project" from Chelsea kills two birds with one stone. This option is not available to everyone.
I'm not hating. Chelsea and everyone eles should be able to do with their money as they wish. We just need to be honest about it and suggesting Boley is "clowing" on the rest of the PL as if no one else knows how to play the game (business not football) is dumb. The other teams simply don't have the means to be able to do it at such scale.
Some of that is because they haven't built their respective academy's aswell and some is because they don't have ownership models with Saudi investment. That's not their fault.
@@outofthetrash5925Chelsea only sold 2 players to Saudi and got less than 40m what are you waffling on about? I can name 5 teams that got more than that.
@@Mikelsteven You still don't get the video do you‽ They were sold at values close to or over their amortised values. £40m (as you say) in the door if amortising future transfers over 5 years allows for a spend now of £200m (£40m x 5). It's unlikely those players would have fetched those fees from none Saudi clubs, not least because of their wages and recent performances.
Yup. The spending seems outrageous because no team rebuilds so fast. They take 5 years to do this much churn.
Manchester United have placed England international left-back Ryan Bertrand, 34 - a free agent after his release by Leicester - on their shortlist as they look to find cover for injured 28-year-old England defender Luke Shaw
Everton are close to agreeing a £25.7m deal to sign Udinese'sPortuguese striker Beto
Crystal Palace have made contact with Paris St-Germain about signing Germany midfielder Julian Draxler
Basically they are leveraging their future
100%, banking on European football and being successful to offset the amortisation. Without getting back into CL within next 2 years, income drastically decreases - shirt sponsor deals, tv payments, competition earnings, global image etc
Let them know!
Crystal Palace could offer England midfielder Eberechi Eze, 25, a £5m-per-year contract with a release clause amid interest from Manchester City
You are forgetting strasborg btw, we would be able to sell to them at book value should players not work out. Protecting chelsea
Louder so the people in the back can hear.
Fenerbahce's Turkey goalkeeper Altay Bayindir, 25, is flying to England as he closes in on a £6m switch to Manchester United
I wonder if the young players will keep coming in when unavoidably some players are gonna fall off the wagon and see several years in development wasted.
This is so stupid as a chelsea fan ... with the amount the club is spending we should be winning or at least be competitive this time around ....
At the end of the day owners should be allowed to invest and spend what they want, it is their club after all
Finally
Liverpool are looking to secure the services of Bayer Leverkusen's 21-year-old Ecuador defender Piero Hincapie
what I really wanna know is how they got all these teams to agree to receiving a small fee over like 10 years rather than that entire fee upfront. you would rather have 100 million now over 10 million over 10 years
Two different things. Brighton get paid £25m in 4 installments for Caicedo. But FFP accounting counts as £12.5m for 8 years.
They don't. One thing is the money flow, another one how that money is registered. They may well pay 100m upfront and declare it over 10 years
they will get more money by agreeing to that rather than paying upfront which chelsea cant do because of ffp
Often chelsea overpaid for players to get favourable payment structures. For example Brighton wanted about 80mil upfront for Caicedo but would only take 100mil+ if it was to be paid in instalments
In general release clauses only work if paid in one istalmment
@@absolutespoon2074
If they could have gotten a striker and not overpaid for many players they could have done best business.
Only over pays are Caicedo, Enzo and Mudryk
@@callumlucas4444I wouldn't even put Enzo in that list. If they sold him in 3 years at £70m, it would be around a break even, and surely he'd fetch that.
@@callumlucas4444enzo was worth it
@@outofthetrash5925he's here to stay
The striker market sucks. I am very happy with Jackson.
I still don't fully understand.
If they are paying off transfer fees over the course of many years, does this mean the selling club doesn't receive a lump sum for their player?
From what I gather. It doesn't matter what money is being transferred. They simplified it to the total price divided by the contract. Which makes zero financial sense if they actually want these clubs to be financially stable
3 things can happen.
•The buying club can pay all of the money upfront but still put the cost onto their books over the length of the players contract.
•The buying club can put the fee onto their books over the length of the players contract and negotiate with the selling club to pay the fee in the equivalent installments or over othe installment plans. No matter how they long they are going to take to pay, the selling club can put all of the fee onto the books straight away but still be owed the money.
•If a selling club wanted all of the money up front when the buyer had planned for installments, a loan can be taken by the buyers to pay instantly and pay the loan over the players contract length or even longer (which would mostly be dumb). The buyers would still have that fee amortised over the players contract.
The first option is much more likely for billionaire owners as they have cash on hand and will not see a need to pay intrest or up purchasing fees to appease clubs for paying in installments.
From the more thorough analyses ive seen, transfer fees are typically paid out in a 12 to 18 month timespan broken out into 2 to 3 payments.
So if there was a cash flow issue, you would have heard about it.
The reality is that Chelseas net spend for this window is 120mil. Its not nearly as dramatic as the news has made it sound because theyve sold so many players.
No. The selling club gets paid much sooner. Only accounting is done over many years.
@@2639theboss 💯
Not gonna matter when they’re playing EFL Championship football next season 😂
Team talk??
Why dose the ginger always say burly it’s boehly
(bowl + lee)
The much bigger issue for them in the short term is going to be cash flow
I think they're betting on continuing to make around £30m pa on academy players.
@@outofthetrash5925 oh I don’t disagree with you. I’m just not sure that’s enough though, it’ll look fine on the books but those clubs will want paying for those players. Presumably they’ll have to take lots of short term ‘loans’ from a friendly owner which I suspect might have been his plan all along
Roman forced the new ownership group to buy the club with an additional 2 billion fund set aside. That fund needed to be spent within 10 years of the sale.
So this literally gets rid of cash flow issues in the immediacy.
@TheJackp34 he set up chelsea really well for the new ownership.
@@TheJackp34 I thought that was all allocated to the stadium? Also pretty sure that was classified as a loan…
Anyone remember when football was about …… football , sod this I’m off to watch no league football it’s more fun
Let’s see how they keep it up since they will be paying transfer fees every year like a 100mil amount per year so they will have to sell a lot of players or youngsters
The Chelsea squad really needed a complete overhaul. Went from an older squad to the youngest squad. Now you give the team time to progress and fill in the gaps. This spending won't be the normal
@@SixGodHobbs oh definitely but the amortisation will be spread over the next few years so it’s going to be increasingly difficult to sign new players
Cobham produces about £100m of talent per year on average... So Chelsea can easily keep spending around £200m per year at least.
@@kth6736 on average yes but it doesn’t mean that they will do it every season let’s say next season they make 40mil on it but the season after 160 it averaged at 100 per season but since it’s an annual ffp then they could breach it technically
@@mateoblesses5091 FFP is done over a 3 season rolling period. Not each year.
And Chelsea have only won 1 game so far 😂
Everybody already knows
I believe you can only spend the cost of transfer fees over 5 years now
Uefa is and premier league changing that to next season
@@mac5407 oh fair enough, thank you
@@mac5407 PL won't matter too much as you have to fall inline with EUFAs rules anyway.
Typical contracts always used to be 5 years (except for older players) but EUFA have changed the amortisation rules only because Chelseas 8 years were being highlighted in the media. Players can still have 8 year contracts if they and the club wish. So this doesn't protect players if indeed you are someone that believes such lengthy contracts are bad for players as some do. Me personally I think a person makes their own decisions and needs to do what they think is right at the time.
@@outofthetrash5925 until Chelsea are back in Europe, UEFA don't have any access to their books or ruling over what they spend, so can continue offering long contracts and amortise over that period, until they are back in European competition or FA change their ruling (which they have discussed).
Have a feeling Chels is working in a really really good deal for the shirt sponsor feels like it is gonna define these things going frwd, the new owners have shaken up prem finances, they will be fine clear lake has a plan for chels an ambition.
Aye the big sponsor was paramount + and then stake lol. Bury your head in sand lol
@@mac5407I'm certain it is infinite athlete.
@@Mikelsteven googled it and that company is a week old lol
@@mac5407 no, the company that it merged with is a week old, and has raised billions, with multiple lucrative deals with the NFL and NBA.
I think Infinite Athlete and Chelsea have a deal at 40m per year
ONE misleading part of an otherwise decent video is that Chelseas amortised expenditure was compared against none amortised expenditure of other PL clubs.
Clearly not on purpose and it does not really matter but Chelsea are bottom of that list if all are amortised or all are not amortised.
Amortised expenditure is irrelevant - it merely exists to reflect the accounting principle of substance over form for a transaction. i.e. player contracted for 8 years therefore can spread it over 8 years. The actual cash out is the transaction cost for the period and the one reported in the cashflow and in the valuation of the player/asset acquired. FFP cares about cashflow. Investors care about P/L and Balance sheet more.
I fully agree with all of that. The point I was making is that the chart at 04:55 on the video (just had to go back and check) compares Chelseas transfer expenditure after amortisation with the other PL clubs transfer expenditure before amortisation is calculated.
I'm not suggesting it makes any of the other information in the video wrong, just that they are not actually above Man Utd and Arsenal in terms of a lower net spend.
Informative videos should seek to compare "apples to apples" and "oranges to oranges" where possible.
@@outofthetrash5925 the thing is amortisation is ignored completely by FFP. FFP cares about cashflows, not revenue (where amortisation would matter) - so in that sense it doesn’t matter.
@@outofthetrash5925 no it doesn't, that table of "net spend" is all the same, "apples to apples" as you described it. That table was accounting for the this seasons incomings - this seasons outgoings.
Remember when Chelsea got sold from Abramovich everyone thought Chelsea would start to be more frugal with no more seemingly unlimited spending?
Welp 😅😅
My spurs supporting colleagues were mocking me by saying welcome to "american ownership". Now they try to avoid eye contact with me. 😂😂
Who cares really chelsea spent 600m last year for 12th place so having all the money in the world wont make a good team also Leicester won the league with a cheap team so is money really that important 😂
Well Chelsea have made 300m in sales this summer alone, plus CHO, Lukaku, Trev Gallagher will bring further 100m.
Why do people choose to ignore this?
Didn’t even watch the video he acknowledges the 250 million in sales and explains how it’s being used
Remember when man city was ruining football with money? Lol
Chelsea and Manchester city are both sugar daddy clubs who bought their Trophies
@@andrewsouthward2461But thats just not correct at all, City aren’t even top 6 biggest net spenders in the league anymore.
@@andrewsouthward2461 everyone bought their trophies, maybe outside of Leicester and teams in WWII era.
@@andrewsouthward2461Liverpool and Man U bought all their trophies too 😂 Do some research, they both had the highest spending in English football back then
@@lgp1905 Manchester city in 2008 when their sugar daddy came had won just 9 Trophies in their history and just over 20 years ago Manchester city were in the 3rd Division of English football and Chelsea in 2003 when their sugar daddy came had also won just 9 Trophies in their history both clubs are nothing but sportswashing football clubs
No worries, any expensive flops could be offloaded to Saudi Arabia.
first
It's a good theory if you only look at the past year and if Chelsea were a profitable club.
But Chelsea has been operating on losses only supported by private debt to Abramovich for years.
Can't just erase £1.6B of loss over the years, start from scratch and defend £1B spending on amortisation when the clubs financial situation was already in the toilet.
@@eddiedaniel5799 writing of debt doesn't balance the clubs finance problems. What's the point of FFP is clubs that spend way over their limits can just get their owners to write it off and then everything is fine and dandy?
@@kristo88 the new owners have bought the company so basically all the assets and the liabilities were bought out at F.M.V. First learn GAAP and then you will understand what are IFRS Standards and then maybe we can talk about Tax and Audit concepts
This isn't how it works. As an accountant here is what it all means:
They have spent £950m in transactions (i.e. cash out). Simple as that. Cash in vs cash out is the important part. However for the purpose of financial reporting they can amortise across the length of a contract (I.e. divide the acquisition costs of the player by length of contract and account for as an expense in the profit/loss account for the year, amortisation is a way of reporting diminishing value over time as the contract expiry is closer to present day and spreading costs over time). It makes annual financial performance look better in terms of revenue; but cash is the most important element, not revenue. They have still actually spent £950m but only need to report £130m in the P/L or balance sheet. Their cashflow still shows -£950m and it's the cashflow that FFP cares about and the reason they should still get fucked over by FFP.
If you're in fact an accountant, I really hope you give your clients better advice than this 😬
@@granth1238 My role has little by way of advisory elements or responsibilities. Just because you fail to understand what substance over form or amortisation actually is and how it works and is accounted for, doesn’t mean this is bad commentary. That’s on you.
Amortisation is an expense that reduces revenue. It is an arbitrary estimate but is an accounting requirement for any reporting entity under UK GAAP and IFRS. If you split it over longer periods by offering borderline illegally long contracts on which to base the estimate, the reduction to revenue is lesser.
FFP doesn’t give a shit about revenue. Only cashflows. Which is why unless Chelsea pay bribes they should be completely fucked by the ongoing investigation.
So Todd took Saudi investment , bought Chelsea, sold half the players to the Saudi league , and now is twisting certain accounts to add everything to balance out 😅😅 welcome to the uk people !
Sold half the players to the Saudis? It was 3 and 1 of them was a free transfer