Boehly was probably influenced by baseball, where players are given longer contracts sometimes over 10 years. This will be beneficial in maintaining a high transfer value and keeping the player under club control preventing them from leaving on a free. But if the player underperforms, you are stuck paying a lot of money for a player that nobody wants. It was smart of Chelsea to put in the clauses allowing a wage drop in case of bad results.
@@danielorji2309 doubtful if ever in the player contract. Most likely their performance bonuses get cut if they didnt make the ucl . The players wage will remain untouched unless somehow they get relegated 😂.
The fact two of the biggest richest clubs in the world still use fax and can get documents wrong is hilarious, even if it is intentional, still remember the Real Madrid/De Gea debacle and find it hilarious
In hindsight though, the De Gea fiasco seems more and more like a Man Utd plot to keep him. Using a fax machine isn’t really an issue; not using it in time IS. The tech behind a fax machine really isn’t an issue.
Can you make a video on why Hungary hasn't kept a top level of football, like the Netherlands? Hungary saw a lot of success between the 30s and 50s, being a twice WC runner-up and winning Olympic Gold 3 times but they had a dramatic fall since their last gold: No big, successful player on the big leagues, their teams don't do well on European level, their national team doesn't go to the WC anymore, etc.
Well now Chelsea has 32 first team players and 22 players on loan. To balance the books they would at least need to sell 8 players but it’s tricky considering not many clubs in Europe that can afford extravagant transfer fees maybe Boehly could buy another club to offset these players and create a football group like City does considering that’s his intention in the first place.
Trying to create an artificial leverage by buying a feeder club to offload their unwanted stars. Hopefully uefa put a banhammer on this which sadly they don't.
It sounds like a really clever trick, but they're only tying one hand behind their back for the next 8 years when it comes to bringing more players in. It reminds me of when teams bring in older players on big money, and then offer them 4 or 5 year contracts. In the short term, it looks like a great coup, but 4 years later, they still have a 35 year-old on the books earning money well in excess of their on-pitch contribution. Or they end up out on loan with the parent club paying most of their wages.
No they're not. All the player's transfer fees in the squad are amortised. As players are sold or finish their initial contracts, they are paid off in the books, meaning new players can be bought. Amortising 8 or so players over an extra 3 years will have a negligible effect overall.
That’s why the top players being brought in are young players that are seen as important players for the spine of the club which needed to happen, reminds me of early on when Chelsea signed the likes of drogba, lampard etc
@@InvaderZim742 it could potentially have an effect if they sell a player before their contract ends as any player they sell will have a higher book value due to the slower amortisation of their fees. That will hit their p&l so could potentially result in them recording a bigger loss for any year in which they sell one or more of these players.
Also *crucially* (and this was in the video we all just watched), their wages are very reasonable. This means that they will be easy to move on if they flop and is quite unlike the example you gave of veteran signings who leave you stuck with a high earning underperformer who you can’t move on to another club. Plenty of clubs would be happy for a half-baked mudryk at only 97k/week if he never reaches his potential
Works great in theory. But to think Chelsea wont have to spend significantly in the next 5 plus years is utopian. The costs will definitely pile up with changes of managers (who want to bring in their signings) and players wanting out.
*6 months from now. That's as long as any Chelsea signing has before he's trashed by the fans. Even if they win a champions league, it doesn't mean a thing
When your spread these cost down the line, it is fine if you are sure the players you signed are suited to your footballing philosophy. When you have a bloated squad on big fees, it's likely you won't get the same fees when you're trying to sell them later. As Arsenal found out, its not easy to get rid of players on long contracts and likely Chelsea will have to pay them off.
@@tompale No need to wait. When the season ends, you will have two players to offload with not so long contracts, Lukaku and Auba. See how it goes. This is what I call risk. It is there. Players can play poorly and lose his market value.
Spread what cost? Chelsea haven't spread any cost. Chelsea haven't done anything differently to how they've always done things. Chelsea, like most clubs, normally pay transfer fees in three annual installments & that's exactly what they've done with their recent signings. Like so many people you are confusing player contracts with paying transfer fees. Some of Chelsea's very young signings have been given 7 & 8 year contracts. This is a completely separate thing to paying the transfer fees.
This whole extended amortisation thing was done exactly once in Australia's biggest football code (10 year contract for a guy who at the time was only expected to maybe play 4) and was promptly stomped out after. Funny that the wild wild west of sports (in terms of fairness where nearly anything goes financially) hadn't tried this tactic yet when its an extremely obvious way to "beat" FFP for short term gain. Its 100% the type of thing you'd expect PSG/City to do when they started.
You don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, 7 year contracts were given to players under Abramovich's ownership. Secondly, no you wouldn't have expected PSG/City to employ Chelsea's current policy of 7 and 8 year contracts because neither PSG or City had a similar transfer policy as this. PSG or City have never had a transfer policy of focusing the bulk of their transfers on 18, 19, 20, 21, yr old players from around the world. If Chelsea were signing 25, 26, 27, 28, yr old players then obviously they wouldn't be giving 7 and 8 yr contracts either. And just how pathetic is it for people to complain & whinge because Chelsea have done what they've done & they're fully compliant with the rules of the game?
People talking about karma like Chelsea did something bad. They followed the rules and as a business took on long term costs. Its worth listening to Simon Jordans explanation of why what they did wasn't wrong and how football clubs should be allowed to spend how they want as long as they're within ffp regulations.
@@danpreston564 Maybe not always for the football side of things but his business knowledge is spot on. Have a listen to what he says. The vids on RUclips.
Very interesting strategy. I wonder how those non-CL wage reduction clauses work. Per session basis? Surely none of these players moving in January expected to be playing in the CL with Chelsea next season.
No. Provided they can cover the cost of these transfer in their accounts they can carry on signing players. Effectively, they have increased the "running cost" for the club.
Yhe if not we get High income from winning things, i think Chelsea Pay 70 mil for alla new players for 7 year. And and they count in a 3 year cycle ffp, so 210 mil - each cycle, but You can have a loss of 110 mil each cycle.
With the reported loss of 120mil last season and the lack of champions league money for next season; I don’t see how they will make further signings without selling when they have an amortized debts of £600mil already on their books already. The idea is good from the board is good but the planning and execution is a mess. Imagine spending €100mil on mudryk; a player you have to still develop whilst spending approx €100mil on sterling and mudueke and also having wingers like Ziyech and pulisic you can still count on at least until the end of the season. The squad building from this Chelsea board is a mess and has a very high probability of failure and that will be disastrous for their long term success. Let’s see how many players they can move on in the summer.
That's nothing new though, I've always done that in FM. The contract length isn't even that relevant either, just spreading the transfer fee out is enough to make it work.
@@ek6352 how would you know? Chelsea won the champions league with good players, but not great players. Everything i've heard says the atmosphere in the dressing room is very good, chemistry will take time to create. These players have plenty of time on their side.
All the focus is on how it's a profit for the books. But Boehly and Clearlake, you assume, would also be needing to turn an actual profit at some point. And that's going to be tricky when the number of clubs who can actually afford those players is limited to a handful in Europe
The contract for the sale of the club dictated they can't take dividends for 10 years. It's a very long term vision. They are not aiming to turn a profit through player sales, They are aiming to raise revenue via commercial, matchday and broadcasting. The way to do that is to win on the pitch.
@@InvaderZim742 I don’t think they’ll do any of that. Chelsea’s stadium isn’t anything compared to the new Spurs stadium. They’ll struggle to turn a profit then get sanctioned. 39 players on their books. Boehly tried to monopolise the transfer market. You see in the states most sports have one dominant league so you get a player. There’s not many places they can go if they’re an up and coming talent. Means players don’t down tools. Here. Whilst some clubs can’t afford the transfer fees, they certainly can afford the wages. So players down tools for 4/5 seasons. Chelsea loses a stupid amount of money. Then they leave for free.
@@InvaderZim742 Chelsea's matchday and commercial revenue growth is hampered by the size of Stamford Bridge. There's no room to redevelop it so if they want to grow that they need a new stadium, that's another £1-2 billion. UK TV rights values have stalled, so they're hoping the US ones do the heavy lifting. And that ignores that player sales were a crucial part of Chelsea's business model under Abramovich, and even they made losses almost every season.
@@HamishNZ119 you're clearly not a Chelsea supporter if you don't know that plans to rebuilt the stadium are already well underway and it was a condition of the sale. The whole point of the new approach is to change the business model and grow revenue to be less reliant on player sales.
@@ossiaigbedo7223 😂 What's to stop any player at any other club on a 5 year contract downing tools? Also, As stated. If they down tools and the club underperforms. Their wages get cut. This anti Chelsea logic is assanine. The are building a new stadium over the next few years. They currently have 32 players on the books for this reason. And it will be even less come the start of next season. Maybe do some research on the topic before opening your mouth next time.
I like the winter transfers we have a clear direction. The summer transfers have recently been working out. One thing for sure we have great business men as owners.
5:25 this isn’t really a looohole, if happens in day to day life. Take an example with klarna the middle man. A customer purchases something for £100 but they use klarna and pay £50 as a deposit then pay £10 (not including fees) for the next 5 month however the company selling the goods will get the full £100.
If Mudryk is out of the squad in the next couple of years (pretty likely) his contract gets impaired down to whatever loan fees they think they can get for him. So they end up taking the full remaining cost of his transfer plus his future wages all in one go. That's why it's not a "trick", it's just a gamble, the downside of which Clearlake probably think they can pass on to the next buyer. "Amortisation means Chelsea haven't actually overpaid" has been the line being peddled for at least 5 years now. "Chelsea used to spend big on stars but are now spending big on youth so they won't have to spend again" goes back at least 10 years, I remember when they splurged on Oscar, Hazard, Mata, Schurrle etc saying they were going to build a young attacking force to dominate Europe, it didn't last. There's a reason Roman had to keep chucking the club a couple of hundred million every few years to keep things going.
The whole system seems absurd to me a club can spend £100m on a player but claim the deal effectively had no cost to the club because they now own an asset would £100m. I would like to see the clubs have to give full details of transfer costs and payment details to register a player. Both teams then have to reflect those fees in their accounts. If I understand for Enzo Chelsea paid Benfica £30m to sign him but according to their accounts the player won't cost them any fee till next year when will report the players value has decreased by around £15m.
The point of spreading out the cost in this way is to give a more accurate picture of the clubs profitability in any given year. If clubs (or any company really, amortisation is not football specific) were allowed to take the full cost of investments in year one then they'd suddenly become far more profitable in year 2, 3,4 etc until another round of investment was needed. So the clubs accounts in those years would be extremely misleading, you'd think the club was doing great but actually it could only keep delivering results if somebody spent hundreds of millions to replace ageing players. I think a better way to think of amortisation is as the amount of money the club would need to take out of its profit each year in order to make future investments to keep the club performing at the same level. By the way if clubs did take the full transfer cost in the year the player is signed it would be far easier to manipulate for FFP - you could delay signing a £100m player by one day in order to take his cost in the following years accounts. Same for any idea of using when cash payments are made as the basis of the accounts , you would simply do a deal to pay the selling club a day/year/years later in order to put the cost in a year that's more convenient for you. e.g you could pay Benfica 200m for Enzo but say you will pay in 5 years time, that sort of thing.
It's a fairly common accounting practice...Chelsea has signed an asset that is valued at 100m, and until they've actually handed over 100m in cash; from an accounting position they are actually in "profit". It may take another 3 years until the par value of the outstanding sum and perceived value of the asset are equal. By that point, they have probably given a new contract, and therefore increased the future sale value of the asset whilst the remaining money owed is less. It's why the likes of United routinely gave out contracts to their deadwood to give an accounting value. The Enzo deal is likely to be seen as a profit throughout his time at Chelsea.
@@marcgains6605 No, when the cash is handed over is almost entirely irrelevant - the liability to pay £100m is created the moment the player is signed so the club are not in profit. They then take a cost of 100m/contract length each year. The "profit" they get is the prize money/broadcasting etc they get from the player being in the squad, that's impossible to separate out though.
@@jkb2819 whilst that's true, what I was referring to, was how they "could" display the book value of the asset - as 100m, whilst it's a depreciating asset against the upcoming liability of say 20m due to the amortization of the transfer fe. That is where in accounting terms it absolutely could be seen as a profit if the asset posted is more than the liabilities for that accounting period. It would be seen as a profit for that year...whereas for FFP they will be looking over a 5 year period where it will balance out...which of course doesn't take into consideration any sales over that time; that will be reported as income on the balance sheet.
The also signed Christopher Nkunku in December for next season and Joao Felix on loan Let's all be real, FFP is only applicable to teams outside the Premier League
the premier league keep making portuguese clubs richier and richies ever season, I LOVE IT, they put themselves in a huge hole with the reckless expending, nonsensical amounts, good for the "smaller"clubs that take advantage
disgusting inflation in football. interesting to see what happens when the UK interest rates go up (BoE mandate, 2% inflation, vs OVER TEN PERCENT) interest rates go up, these over leveraged clubs are really, really, really, really going to get it. Bank of England cannot tolerate an inflation rate five times what its supposed to be. Interest rates go up, end of cheap credit ends, over leveraged clubs go boom boom.
yes exactly, i was wondering if anyone else was going to point this out. how pathetic to send an email with the wrong attachment, the kind of mistake an intern would make. boehly has no idea what he's doing. i see a glazers/man u kind of crisis unfolding...
@@anb2456 exactly mate, too much focus is on these ridiculous signings which for does not deserve any praise to cheat based on a loop hole. So much for being a fair league i guess
@@ohhimark3691 It is hard when the player's club stubbornly refuse to sell the player. Benfica didn't want the £107m, they preferred to keep the player. It was only when the player himself got involved & became vocal with his demands to be let go that Benfica started relenting.
They still paid over the odds for these supposed young talents who flopped. No one will be able to pay them in similar fees to help them get rid of them.
I wanted to make a suggestion, you probably have a lot of other fans outside of the UK who don't really know what to do with £/week. It would be great. If you could also mention the annual salary. Then it's easier to understand.
I don’t think Chelsea’s splurge was such a bad thing. They bought young, mostly unproven players. It’ll be exciting to watch them develop. Had they have bought several world class, well established players, that would have been a different story…
Why do all these 'accounting experts' not mention that amortisation over a longer period hinders future purchases because their net book value is not cleared after 4 years meaning they still carry that and future amortisation.
Clubs like Man Utd, PSG and especially Man City needs to be limited within the market. The way they are inflating the prices for players who’ve barely proven themselves (Mudryk, Antony) is ruining the entire market, cause now clubs are demanding much more than the true value of their players
Madueke is insanely injury prone Mudryk looks worse than Pepe when he joined Arsenal Chelsea aren't the club to give them 2 seasons to try and come good
@@00dude3 Mudryk looks great. He’s quite raw, but is oozing potential. Pepe was literally never that amazing in Ligue 1. Arsenal’s fault for grossly overpaying for a fairly limited player. The bigger talent in the French league at that time was Malcom
@@xavier1752 Im certain Mudryk has more potential then Pepe, but all we know is that Mudryk has shown very VERY little of that potential except against a 60 year old James Milner. My hope is that Chelsea don’t learn from the mistake of buying a player for £80million who isn’t yet the finished article. Those transfer fees should be reserved for players who are everything they need to be at the moment they touch down, because Mudryk doesn’t seem like he’s handling his price tag well. He’s got at TikTok, though.
I hope we get a Tifo video called the “Chelsea 8” in a few years after these signings don’t pan out. I don’t think anyone will ever top the “Garett Bale 7” in terms of bad signings and Chelsea board are more shrewd than Tottenham and their owners.
@@InvaderZim742 chill man it was tongue in cheek and I didn’t say they were bad signings. Just think it would be funny if we had another one of those videos. Notice how I said the Chelsea board are shrewd.
Benfica received the 120M € in full actually. Chelsea found a 3rd party "loan shark" who paid Benfica and that will be paid in installements by Chelsea, with interest. Good luck next season in Conference!
What us the risk of buying players using the 'amortisation trick'. Understand they may not perform to their expected level but what is the 'backfiring' risk?
The cost of their transfer is amortised through their accounts across the length of the players contact, so for example a £100m player over 8 years would add a cost of £12.5m to their costs for each of the next 8 years. There are a few risks with this method. By spreading the costs now it forces the club to continue doing so in the future as if they start recognising the transfer expenses over a shorter timeframe (as they'll have to with future transfers now d'you to the change in uefas rules) it makes the expense burden in future years higher whilst only benefiting in a reduced expense burden in the short term. When a player is sold you can recognise all of the income from the transfer in full. If you come to sell a player and they're still within the amortisation window you have to recognise the remaining cost of the asset disposal at the point of sale, if the player has dropped in value this could be hugely negative and essentially trap the player at the club. For example, a £100m sold 2 years in to their 8 year contract will still hold a value of £75m in the accounts. If that player is sold for £60m then rather than recognising £75m income, as you would with a player that's fully amortised, you instead have to recognise a £15m loss. As you'd likely want to buy a new player to replace the old player you can see how this will have a knock on effect for the transfer budget / ffp. Added to that risk, if you can't sell an underperforming player you'll have to tank their amortisation expense on top of any other expenses every year until their contract expires. In my example you end up absorbing that £12.5m expense on top of the players wages. Now, for one player that might not be too bad but Chelsea have done this with most of the players they bought this year. If more of them fail than succeed at the club then Chelsea are likely to struggle to make a profit in the future, it'll be in about 3-5 years time this will hurt them if things go wrong. They might have some serious FFP problems.
a 100m signing in my eyes was something only the top 5/6 clubs in the world could do and they’d do it once every 4/5 years when they needed a ready made world class player. Chelsea scrapped this idea and bought 2 youngsters with amazing potential but not guarantee in quality at all
Those contracts for the players sound poor there agents should have done better. If they underperform they will get stitched up and turfed out. And in a league with lots of money and competition that could happen quite regularly.
Even if they are guaranteed if they are not successful at chelsea then those contracts will hurt there chances of a fresh start elsewhere. Also with such long contracts no need to give them an improved wage just feels like they have been poorly adviced.
I'm not a Chelsea fan at all, but I think there's NOTHING WRONG with what Chelsea are doing. Yes, you get around FFP, but there's a risk that comes with that. You might end up with 5 more Winston Boagardes! 😅
It's because having contacts that long is absolutely stupid in football. Boehly doesn't understand how football works and is just trying to run Chelsea like an American sports franchise. A couple of years down the line this is going to be disastrous
Psg were actually at fault n tbh when a club owner is out with his advisor on deadline day to secure a £100+ million player couldn’t psg have thought this out bettr rather than get screws during the deadline day
Rivals are failing to realize that 1) Most of these players have only been at Chelsea for 2 months 2) A quality manager is needed to bring it all together then Chelsea will succeed at least give them a full season
Maybe I am wrong about this, but what would be the insentive of the player not to run down his long and possibly well payed contract if he flops? For example, Enzo turns out to be a gigantic miss and he turns out to be horrible (again, speaking in hypotheticals here) and no other good club would want him? Wouldn't it create a situation where he would just want to run down his crazy long contract, and just collect a paycheck every month for the next 8 years to the harm of the club? We have examples of players running down 4 year contracts just to collect the money, so what would prevent 8 year contracts from being ran down, especially given the fact that chelsea have a bloated roster which guarantees one of these 1 year contracts will flop. In the american sports you would solve this by just trading away the contract but in Europe that does not work that way.
It’s most definitely risky. Enzo is already looking like one of the best midfielders in the entire league though. Mudryk I am not so sure about I could see that costing us in the future 😭
I would agree on the risk of that happening to certain players, not Enzo though, that guy is devoted to be the best player he can be like no other, and it shows, he looks levels above the rest every time he plays. One would think the scouting network has background into account when choosing which players to go for.
Hristijan Zdravkovski Yes, you are wrong about this. You ask..what would be the incentive for a player to run down his long & well paid contract if he flops'. Well, just ask yourself, how many players in the Premier Lge have you seen do this? How many players who flop in their first, & maybe second, season & who have a 5 year contract have you seen refuse to be sold & instead run down the remaining 3 or 4 years of their well paid contract? Here's a good example: Lukaku signs an extremely well paid 5 year contract with Chelsea. After just one season of where he was a flop, his club, Chelsea, wanted to move him on. No club could afford his transfer fee AND could match his Chelsea wages. So what happened, did he run down the remaining 4 years of his contract & continue to pick up his very lucrative wages? No, he chose to take a big cut in wages & join another club where he could continue playing football. Lukaku could easily have told Chelsea he was refusing to go to another club but instead he would run down the remaining 4 years of his contract. The reality is that it virtually never happens that a player decides he would rather sit in the stands on matchdays & play no football for a few years simply because it is financially beneficial to do so. A professional footballers career is short, the last thing they want is to miss playing for a few years & to do so because of money reasons. I've supported Chelsea for 54 years, since I was 6 years old, & in all that time I can only think of one or two players who stubbornly refused to leave the club & instead insist on running down the remaining years of their contract. One player was Winston Bogarde & he stayed the course & remained at the club right up until the last day of his contract. Another player who threatened to do it & did do it for a short while was Florent Malouda. He made noises about not leaving & running down his contract & for a short while he did. But it didn't take long for him to change his mind & come to his senses. Other than that I'm struggling to think of another Chelsea player who did this. You claim you know of examples where players refused to leave their club & instead ran down the last 4 years of their contracts. It would have been nice if you had given the names of some of these players. Do you REALLY think somebody who is as rare as a Premiership standard football player & who has very probably spent years dreaming of making the big time, would really be prepared to sacrifice as many as 6 or 7 years of his career, sacrifice the prime years of his career, because he won't take a wage cut from, say, £100k per week to £60k per week? If he doesn't play any football for as long as, say, 5 years, then it's very possible it would be the end of his career. Do you REALLY think 99% of footballers would be prepared to do this?
That move was crazy. Did they want or not want to loan him out? Even more bizzare thing happened. Ziyech was used as starting lineup in the immediate game after that saga. So the whole thing is to fool and make fun of PSG!
@@InvaderZim742 I’ve never thought it remotely possible until now. You’re right though I’m sure this approach that no other club has ever thought is a good idea will work out just fine for you.
@@DavidC-fk2wg I'm sure the club will be just fine with an extra £60m a season on the books. Make far more in player sales every season. Thanks for your concern.
The Dodgers spend the equivalent of a small country's gdp every year and still can't win the World Series on a regular basis. This high spending by Chelsea will get them trophies, but it will not get them regular success. It's better to have a team that functions and makes sense than what Chelsea are building, there's no clear vision to what they're doing and it's hilarious.
Boehly took a gamble and it looks like it hasnt paid off. He wont get half of what he paid for these players, he was basically trying to inflate the market, running a football club like a stock exchange does not work.
why? Chelsea aren't hiding anything and know exactly what they need to do to balance the books. They've been extremely smart about it which is why they don't breach FFP
@@InvaderZim742 It seems a reasonable bet to assume that a team that spent more money than 4 entire leagues combined in a single transfer window wasn't exactly following all the rules
@@jpthomas9491 unfortunately for you that's just now how it works. Chelsea are going to sell players in the summer to balance the books. That's just a fact.
Still I am not impressed. Most of these players will not be elite talents. Also Enzo transfer is not a healthy way of doing it. Benfica bought the player 6 months ago for 12M Euros and after 6 months, you pay 120 for the player. This shows how the scouting is a fail and makes the club poor both financially and inwardly.
Armchair football expert should really look at some basic accounting. When you talk about cost and contract length you need to have a basic understanding that in accounting the cost of any asset is spread over a number of fiscal years, until its replacement. A player is a club asset and so the end of use is the end of the contract of that player.
The title suggests Chelsea have done something good. Instead they've overspent on just decent players and are stuck with these players for 8+ years even if they are massive flops
So Chelsea now have a team with a lot of new additions on lesser wages. Definitely a stable situation. If they do well they'll be pushing for an increase at which point Chelsea will do what ..... ?
it's an absolute mess. it can see it becoming a worse crisis than man united (pre ten hag). compare it to brighton, and it's the complete opposite of how to run a football club
@@anb2456 They have bought many experienced directors which did great at having good transfers at other clubs. Its only been half year they start working. To become like Brighton, they need few years.
Robert Smith. Chelsea will do what? Isn't it bloody obvious? They will either agree that a wage increase is fully deserved & approve a wage increase but if they don't feel a wage increase would be justified then they will remind the player he is on an eight year contract & therefore all the power is with the club. However, I think it's well known that Chelsea are a club that history shows doesn't tend to have too many wage disputes with their players. This basically stems from the fact that Chelsea are one of the very best payers in the game.
Zyiech was left stranded in Paris with looking for somewhere to stay 😂😂😂😂😂, excuse me , was he stranded in the middle of north pole or Paris? This is hilarious and not in a good way 😂😂😂
Boehly was probably influenced by baseball, where players are given longer contracts sometimes over 10 years. This will be beneficial in maintaining a high transfer value and keeping the player under club control preventing them from leaving on a free.
But if the player underperforms, you are stuck paying a lot of money for a player that nobody wants. It was smart of Chelsea to put in the clauses allowing a wage drop in case of bad results.
Yes, baseball does provide a lot of pointers for professional football.
If the player underperforms, clauses in their contracts reduce their salaries making them easier to sell.
@@danielorji2309 doubtful if ever in the player contract. Most likely their performance bonuses get cut if they didnt make the ucl .
The players wage will remain untouched unless somehow they get relegated 😂.
I was just about to say the same thing
@@hungchoonghow5857 it’s still a professional sporting contract. I really shouldn’t imagine they’re that different.
The fact two of the biggest richest clubs in the world still use fax and can get documents wrong is hilarious, even if it is intentional, still remember the Real Madrid/De Gea debacle and find it hilarious
Well it is just as quick as using whatsapp and quicker than email, also probably for legal reason involved
@@benishben4364 quicker than email?
In hindsight though, the De Gea fiasco seems more and more like a Man Utd plot to keep him. Using a fax machine isn’t really an issue; not using it in time IS. The tech behind a fax machine really isn’t an issue.
it's surprising to me how widely fax is still used for really formal documents
Fax works just like email anyway.
Can you make a video on why Hungary hasn't kept a top level of football, like the Netherlands? Hungary saw a lot of success between the 30s and 50s, being a twice WC runner-up and winning Olympic Gold 3 times but they had a dramatic fall since their last gold: No big, successful player on the big leagues, their teams don't do well on European level, their national team doesn't go to the WC anymore, etc.
Probably had to do with most of the financial focus in the eastern bloc being on east Germany and the Soviet Union but idk
Video would be interesting
Fall of socialism
i think alfie @hitcsevens will be a able to give you a detailed explanation if you ask
All their good players are in RB Leipzig lol, Orban, Szoboszlai and Gulacsi.
The eastern bloc affect
Well now Chelsea has 32 first team players and 22 players on loan. To balance the books they would at least need to sell 8 players but it’s tricky considering not many clubs in Europe that can afford extravagant transfer fees maybe Boehly could buy another club to offset these players and create a football group like City does considering that’s his intention in the first place.
Already being done. Strasbourg in France, looking for a Portuguese team as well
Trying to create an artificial leverage by buying a feeder club to offload their unwanted stars. Hopefully uefa put a banhammer on this which sadly they don't.
@@kamrangreen1202 Aren't Strasbourg part of City group
Ouch 😢felt bad for Hakim. Meanwhile Jorge Mendes is quite an agent 👏
And Benfica are quite the club given they signed him for €18m and five months later sold him for north of €120m. Great play from Rui Costa.
@@DJLDominohe cost Benfica 44 million not 18
@@mainsmainno, he costed 18 million at the time, the rest were paid with his transfer to chelsea because they had 20 or 25% sell on value on him
What we did to Ziyech was so horrible
It sounds like a really clever trick, but they're only tying one hand behind their back for the next 8 years when it comes to bringing more players in. It reminds me of when teams bring in older players on big money, and then offer them 4 or 5 year contracts. In the short term, it looks like a great coup, but 4 years later, they still have a 35 year-old on the books earning money well in excess of their on-pitch contribution. Or they end up out on loan with the parent club paying most of their wages.
No they're not. All the player's transfer fees in the squad are amortised. As players are sold or finish their initial contracts, they are paid off in the books, meaning new players can be bought. Amortising 8 or so players over an extra 3 years will have a negligible effect overall.
That’s why the top players being brought in are young players that are seen as important players for the spine of the club which needed to happen, reminds me of early on when Chelsea signed the likes of drogba, lampard etc
@@InvaderZim742 it could potentially have an effect if they sell a player before their contract ends as any player they sell will have a higher book value due to the slower amortisation of their fees. That will hit their p&l so could potentially result in them recording a bigger loss for any year in which they sell one or more of these players.
That last part describes Juventus very well
Also *crucially* (and this was in the video we all just watched), their wages are very reasonable. This means that they will be easy to move on if they flop and is quite unlike the example you gave of veteran signings who leave you stuck with a high earning underperformer who you can’t move on to another club. Plenty of clubs would be happy for a half-baked mudryk at only 97k/week if he never reaches his potential
Works great in theory. But to think Chelsea wont have to spend significantly in the next 5 plus years is utopian. The costs will definitely pile up with changes of managers (who want to bring in their signings) and players wanting out.
3 years from now we'll be talking about how this transfer window actually broke Chelsea, not the other way around
You wish
A lot depends on whether Potter can get these kids to gel and play consistently. If he does, could be great if not it could go very wrong very fast.
*6 months from now.
That's as long as any Chelsea signing has before he's trashed by the fans. Even if they win a champions league, it doesn't mean a thing
Love to see the hate 💙. We thrive from this, keep hating and we’ll keep having success and get trophies. Business as usual
@@albertonicolae9270 and *buy* trophies
This is what I expect to happen, if The Spiffing Brit is in charge of any clubs transfer...
When your spread these cost down the line, it is fine if you are sure the players you signed are suited to your footballing philosophy. When you have a bloated squad on big fees, it's likely you won't get the same fees when you're trying to sell them later. As Arsenal found out, its not easy to get rid of players on long contracts and likely Chelsea will have to pay them off.
I think todd knows more than you
@@tompale Know is one thing. And nail it is another. It is still a high risk move. The new players bring in must perform well.
@@catchnkill lets wait and see when you will cry later
@@tompale No need to wait. When the season ends, you will have two players to offload with not so long contracts, Lukaku and Auba. See how it goes. This is what I call risk. It is there. Players can play poorly and lose his market value.
Spread what cost? Chelsea haven't spread any cost. Chelsea haven't done anything differently to how they've always done things. Chelsea, like most clubs, normally pay transfer fees in three annual installments & that's exactly what they've done with their recent signings.
Like so many people you are confusing player contracts with paying transfer fees. Some of Chelsea's very young signings have been given 7 & 8 year contracts. This is a completely separate thing to paying the transfer fees.
Feels like every transfer window these days is unlike any other
„Mudryk for example earns a basic wage of 97k pounds per week.“ British salary system seems to be doing fine
This whole extended amortisation thing was done exactly once in Australia's biggest football code (10 year contract for a guy who at the time was only expected to maybe play 4) and was promptly stomped out after.
Funny that the wild wild west of sports (in terms of fairness where nearly anything goes financially) hadn't tried this tactic yet when its an extremely obvious way to "beat" FFP for short term gain. Its 100% the type of thing you'd expect PSG/City to do when they started.
Are we talking about Gary Ablett Jr?
You don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, 7 year contracts were given to players under Abramovich's ownership.
Secondly, no you wouldn't have expected PSG/City to employ Chelsea's current policy of 7 and 8 year contracts because neither PSG or City had a similar transfer policy as this. PSG or City have never had a transfer policy of focusing the bulk of their transfers on 18, 19, 20, 21, yr old players from around the world. If Chelsea were signing 25, 26, 27, 28, yr old players then obviously they wouldn't be giving 7 and 8 yr contracts either.
And just how pathetic is it for people to complain & whinge because Chelsea have done what they've done & they're fully compliant with the rules of the game?
People talking about karma like Chelsea did something bad. They followed the rules and as a business took on long term costs. Its worth listening to Simon Jordans explanation of why what they did wasn't wrong and how football clubs should be allowed to spend how they want as long as they're within ffp regulations.
It’s never worth listening to Simon Jordan.
They wish bad on Chelsea always. Remember when they said Chelsea would get liquidated after Roman? 😂😂😂😂
If u are the last one to take the exploit then it gets closed. It's a genius
@@danpreston564 Maybe not always for the football side of things but his business knowledge is spot on. Have a listen to what he says. The vids on RUclips.
Bro said Simon Jordan 😂😂😂
Who’s here after they spent even more this year
Cry now, cry later, cry tomorrow , keep crying until them tears dry
Who let the doge out
Very interesting strategy. I wonder how those non-CL wage reduction clauses work. Per session basis? Surely none of these players moving in January expected to be playing in the CL with Chelsea next season.
And still didn't buy a No.9!!!
So if they want to sign further players for the next 5-8 years they have to sell first to balance the books?
No. Provided they can cover the cost of these transfer in their accounts they can carry on signing players. Effectively, they have increased the "running cost" for the club.
Yhe if not we get High income from winning things, i think Chelsea Pay 70 mil for alla new players for 7 year. And and they count in a 3 year cycle ffp, so 210 mil - each cycle, but You can have a loss of 110 mil each cycle.
It was already the plan to sell players in the summer anyway. No club will spend 8 years with the same squad.
With the reported loss of 120mil last season and the lack of champions league money for next season; I don’t see how they will make further signings without selling when they have an amortized debts of £600mil already on their books already.
The idea is good from the board is good but the planning and execution is a mess. Imagine spending €100mil on mudryk; a player you have to still develop whilst spending approx €100mil on sterling and mudueke and also having wingers like Ziyech and pulisic you can still count on at least until the end of the season.
The squad building from this Chelsea board is a mess and has a very high probability of failure and that will be disastrous for their long term success. Let’s see how many players they can move on in the summer.
That's nothing new though, I've always done that in FM. The contract length isn't even that relevant either, just spreading the transfer fee out is enough to make it work.
Enzo chelsea legend...
Best teams don't win teams with good chemistry perform well at least that's my theory
Prime Barca and 3 peat Madrid had both.
@@nightking8490 and psg and Chelsea dont
@@ek6352 how would you know? Chelsea won the champions league with good players, but not great players. Everything i've heard says the atmosphere in the dressing room is very good, chemistry will take time to create. These players have plenty of time on their side.
@@nightking8490 3 peat Madrid 🤔?
@@johnsontjoseChampions League.
Enzo has been very very good
All the focus is on how it's a profit for the books. But Boehly and Clearlake, you assume, would also be needing to turn an actual profit at some point.
And that's going to be tricky when the number of clubs who can actually afford those players is limited to a handful in Europe
The contract for the sale of the club dictated they can't take dividends for 10 years. It's a very long term vision. They are not aiming to turn a profit through player sales, They are aiming to raise revenue via commercial, matchday and broadcasting. The way to do that is to win on the pitch.
@@InvaderZim742 I don’t think they’ll do any of that. Chelsea’s stadium isn’t anything compared to the new Spurs stadium. They’ll struggle to turn a profit then get sanctioned. 39 players on their books. Boehly tried to monopolise the transfer market. You see in the states most sports have one dominant league so you get a player. There’s not many places they can go if they’re an up and coming talent. Means players don’t down tools. Here. Whilst some clubs can’t afford the transfer fees, they certainly can afford the wages. So players down tools for 4/5 seasons. Chelsea loses a stupid amount of money. Then they leave for free.
@@InvaderZim742 Chelsea's matchday and commercial revenue growth is hampered by the size of Stamford Bridge. There's no room to redevelop it so if they want to grow that they need a new stadium, that's another £1-2 billion. UK TV rights values have stalled, so they're hoping the US ones do the heavy lifting.
And that ignores that player sales were a crucial part of Chelsea's business model under Abramovich, and even they made losses almost every season.
@@HamishNZ119 you're clearly not a Chelsea supporter if you don't know that plans to rebuilt the stadium are already well underway and it was a condition of the sale.
The whole point of the new approach is to change the business model and grow revenue to be less reliant on player sales.
@@ossiaigbedo7223 😂
What's to stop any player at any other club on a 5 year contract downing tools?
Also, As stated. If they down tools and the club underperforms. Their wages get cut.
This anti Chelsea logic is assanine. The are building a new stadium over the next few years. They currently have 32 players on the books for this reason. And it will be even less come the start of next season.
Maybe do some research on the topic before opening your mouth next time.
You missed out Christopher Nkunku?
He won't arrive until summer of 2023 when the current season ends.
The only thing that’s left is a competent quality manager
Nagelsmann in the summer let's hope
Clearly GP plays football manager, we have been doing this for years to be able to spend billions
I like the winter transfers we have a clear direction. The summer transfers have recently been working out. One thing for sure we have great business men as owners.
Your direction is the championship mate 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@natsudama4604 I don’t personally gamble but if you’re that confident you should go put some money on it.
They might have a problem selling Mudryk even with this wage.
5:25 this isn’t really a looohole, if happens in day to day life. Take an example with klarna the middle man. A customer purchases something for £100 but they use klarna and pay £50 as a deposit then pay £10 (not including fees) for the next 5 month however the company selling the goods will get the full £100.
It's unbelievable. They found a way to introduce tanking to the Premier League
If Mudryk is out of the squad in the next couple of years (pretty likely) his contract gets impaired down to whatever loan fees they think they can get for him. So they end up taking the full remaining cost of his transfer plus his future wages all in one go. That's why it's not a "trick", it's just a gamble, the downside of which Clearlake probably think they can pass on to the next buyer.
"Amortisation means Chelsea haven't actually overpaid" has been the line being peddled for at least 5 years now. "Chelsea used to spend big on stars but are now spending big on youth so they won't have to spend again" goes back at least 10 years, I remember when they splurged on Oscar, Hazard, Mata, Schurrle etc saying they were going to build a young attacking force to dominate Europe, it didn't last. There's a reason Roman had to keep chucking the club a couple of hundred million every few years to keep things going.
Chelsea have the best client journalists to clear their name
The whole system seems absurd to me a club can spend £100m on a player but claim the deal effectively had no cost to the club because they now own an asset would £100m. I would like to see the clubs have to give full details of transfer costs and payment details to register a player. Both teams then have to reflect those fees in their accounts. If I understand for Enzo Chelsea paid Benfica £30m to sign him but according to their accounts the player won't cost them any fee till next year when will report the players value has decreased by around £15m.
The point of spreading out the cost in this way is to give a more accurate picture of the clubs profitability in any given year. If clubs (or any company really, amortisation is not football specific) were allowed to take the full cost of investments in year one then they'd suddenly become far more profitable in year 2, 3,4 etc until another round of investment was needed. So the clubs accounts in those years would be extremely misleading, you'd think the club was doing great but actually it could only keep delivering results if somebody spent hundreds of millions to replace ageing players. I think a better way to think of amortisation is as the amount of money the club would need to take out of its profit each year in order to make future investments to keep the club performing at the same level.
By the way if clubs did take the full transfer cost in the year the player is signed it would be far easier to manipulate for FFP - you could delay signing a £100m player by one day in order to take his cost in the following years accounts. Same for any idea of using when cash payments are made as the basis of the accounts , you would simply do a deal to pay the selling club a day/year/years later in order to put the cost in a year that's more convenient for you. e.g you could pay Benfica 200m for Enzo but say you will pay in 5 years time, that sort of thing.
It's a fairly common accounting practice...Chelsea has signed an asset that is valued at 100m, and until they've actually handed over 100m in cash; from an accounting position they are actually in "profit". It may take another 3 years until the par value of the outstanding sum and perceived value of the asset are equal. By that point, they have probably given a new contract, and therefore increased the future sale value of the asset whilst the remaining money owed is less. It's why the likes of United routinely gave out contracts to their deadwood to give an accounting value. The Enzo deal is likely to be seen as a profit throughout his time at Chelsea.
@@marcgains6605 No, when the cash is handed over is almost entirely irrelevant - the liability to pay £100m is created the moment the player is signed so the club are not in profit. They then take a cost of 100m/contract length each year. The "profit" they get is the prize money/broadcasting etc they get from the player being in the squad, that's impossible to separate out though.
@@jkb2819 whilst that's true, what I was referring to, was how they "could" display the book value of the asset - as 100m, whilst it's a depreciating asset against the upcoming liability of say 20m due to the amortization of the transfer fe. That is where in accounting terms it absolutely could be seen as a profit if the asset posted is more than the liabilities for that accounting period. It would be seen as a profit for that year...whereas for FFP they will be looking over a 5 year period where it will balance out...which of course doesn't take into consideration any sales over that time; that will be reported as income on the balance sheet.
The also signed Christopher Nkunku in December for next season and Joao Felix on loan
Let's all be real, FFP is only applicable to teams outside the Premier League
Chelsea and Man City have already been punished by FFP , so lets be real lol
@@obpihhipbo888 Chelsea haven't been punished by FFP. Current charges are against Man City and Everton
@@ebnest123 remember the tranfer ban during lampard manager era?
@@pramuzainsan that wasn't for FFP that was for signing underage players
@@veryscarygoat which is under Fifa Financial Play
it all feels so cheap and unearned.............like they're just buying trophies rather than earning them.
as opposed to city united, arsenal and liverpool all getting their players for free? oh wait nevermind, they all spent billions too.
the premier league keep making portuguese clubs richier and richies ever season, I LOVE IT, they put themselves in a huge hole with the reckless expending, nonsensical amounts, good for the "smaller"clubs that take advantage
Damn Ziyach was done dirty
Superb content
disgusting inflation in football. interesting to see what happens when the UK interest rates go up (BoE mandate, 2% inflation, vs OVER TEN PERCENT)
interest rates go up, these over leveraged clubs are really, really, really, really going to get it.
Bank of England cannot tolerate an inflation rate five times what its supposed to be. Interest rates go up, end of cheap credit ends, over leveraged clubs go boom boom.
that Ziech situation proves how unprofessional Chelsea is
yes exactly, i was wondering if anyone else was going to point this out. how pathetic to send an email with the wrong attachment, the kind of mistake an intern would make. boehly has no idea what he's doing. i see a glazers/man u kind of crisis unfolding...
@@anb2456 exactly mate, too much focus is on these ridiculous signings which for does not deserve any praise to cheat based on a loop hole. So much for being a fair league i guess
@@olivermorning4945 Why enquire at the last moment then.
And they still won’t get into the Champions League
How about them on our cabinet?
They don't need to. Football last more than one season fella.
Chelsea fly to get their players and PSG sends a fax
Still can't believe we managed to land Enzo. Insane baller that didn't need any "period of adjustment"
what’s difficult to believe about buying a player for £106million?
@@miniman2132 cry
Yeah, you waved money and he went. Not really that hard mate
@@ohhimark3691 It is hard when the player's club stubbornly refuse to sell the player. Benfica didn't want the £107m, they preferred to keep the player. It was only when the player himself got involved & became vocal with his demands to be let go that Benfica started relenting.
They still paid over the odds for these supposed young talents who flopped. No one will be able to pay them in similar fees to help them get rid of them.
I wanted to make a suggestion, you probably have a lot of other fans outside of the UK who don't really know what to do with £/week. It would be great. If you could also mention the annual salary. Then it's easier to understand.
I think it's fairly obvious that the players are earning exorbitant amounts. Per week is fine.
Just multiply by 52?
I'm certain they have weeks outside of the UK.
There’s 52 weeks in a year all over the world mate
All salaries are mentioned in weeks for footballer. Changing it to annually will be even more confusing.
This sounds really similar to the Derby video on how they went bankrupt.
I don’t think Chelsea’s splurge was such a bad thing. They bought young, mostly unproven players. It’ll be exciting to watch them develop.
Had they have bought several world class, well established players, that would have been a different story…
When have Chelsea ever developed anyone?
@@marcbaigrie2295they have one of the best academy’s in the world 🙃🤡
Why do all these 'accounting experts' not mention that amortisation over a longer period hinders future purchases because their net book value is not cleared after 4 years meaning they still carry that and future amortisation.
Revenues would have increased.
Enzo should not be at Chelsea.
I know this is just minor, but I'm at awe that a Puerto Rican is involved in this scale of business.
Can you do a video on simon jordans crystal palace?
Clubs like Man Utd, PSG and especially Man City needs to be limited within the market. The way they are inflating the prices for players who’ve barely proven themselves (Mudryk, Antony) is ruining the entire market, cause now clubs are demanding much more than the true value of their players
Chelsea were criticised for exploiting this loophole yet if it was Barca or Real that did it, everyone would have called them geniuses
Welcome to American sport contracts. This is how the kings of profit bearing sports do things
I feel the transfers will work out
Mudryk,Madueke and Enzo will succeed while Koulibaly isn’t cuttting it for me same as Cucurella.
Madueke is insanely injury prone
Mudryk looks worse than Pepe when he joined Arsenal
Chelsea aren't the club to give them 2 seasons to try and come good
@@00dude3Has Madueke been injured at Chelsea? Also this new ownership is prioritizing the development of young players? Mudryk has been poor tbf
And Man City insisted they wouldn’t pay that high price for him. Why? Because their talented staff know what they’re looking at
@@00dude3 Mudryk looks great. He’s quite raw, but is oozing potential. Pepe was literally never that amazing in Ligue 1. Arsenal’s fault for grossly overpaying for a fairly limited player. The bigger talent in the French league at that time was Malcom
@@xavier1752 Im certain Mudryk has more potential then Pepe, but all we know is that Mudryk has shown very VERY little of that potential except against a 60 year old James Milner.
My hope is that Chelsea don’t learn from the mistake of buying a player for £80million who isn’t yet the finished article.
Those transfer fees should be reserved for players who are everything they need to be at the moment they touch down, because Mudryk doesn’t seem like he’s handling his price tag well.
He’s got at TikTok, though.
I hope we get a Tifo video called the “Chelsea 8” in a few years after these signings don’t pan out. I don’t think anyone will ever top the “Garett Bale 7” in terms of bad signings and Chelsea board are more shrewd than Tottenham and their owners.
Most of these signings have already panned out albeit early days. Enzo, Badiashile, Wesley Fofana. They just need a good manager
and we hope you upload a video of yourself crying when they all succeed. Most of them are already looking great.
@@InvaderZim742 chill man it was tongue in cheek and I didn’t say they were bad signings. Just think it would be funny if we had another one of those videos. Notice how I said the Chelsea board are shrewd.
@@InvaderZim742 not looking good
@@InvaderZim742 looking great losing 4-1 huh 😂😂😂😂
Benfica received the 120M € in full actually. Chelsea found a 3rd party "loan shark" who paid Benfica and that will be paid in installements by Chelsea, with interest. Good luck next season in Conference!
nothing new the nhl and nfl teams do the same thing, if the team doesn’t win then they are stuck with bad contracts
What us the risk of buying players using the 'amortisation trick'. Understand they may not perform to their expected level but what is the 'backfiring' risk?
The cost of their transfer is amortised through their accounts across the length of the players contact, so for example a £100m player over 8 years would add a cost of £12.5m to their costs for each of the next 8 years.
There are a few risks with this method. By spreading the costs now it forces the club to continue doing so in the future as if they start recognising the transfer expenses over a shorter timeframe (as they'll have to with future transfers now d'you to the change in uefas rules) it makes the expense burden in future years higher whilst only benefiting in a reduced expense burden in the short term.
When a player is sold you can recognise all of the income from the transfer in full. If you come to sell a player and they're still within the amortisation window you have to recognise the remaining cost of the asset disposal at the point of sale, if the player has dropped in value this could be hugely negative and essentially trap the player at the club. For example, a £100m sold 2 years in to their 8 year contract will still hold a value of £75m in the accounts. If that player is sold for £60m then rather than recognising £75m income, as you would with a player that's fully amortised, you instead have to recognise a £15m loss. As you'd likely want to buy a new player to replace the old player you can see how this will have a knock on effect for the transfer budget / ffp.
Added to that risk, if you can't sell an underperforming player you'll have to tank their amortisation expense on top of any other expenses every year until their contract expires. In my example you end up absorbing that £12.5m expense on top of the players wages.
Now, for one player that might not be too bad but Chelsea have done this with most of the players they bought this year. If more of them fail than succeed at the club then Chelsea are likely to struggle to make a profit in the future, it'll be in about 3-5 years time this will hurt them if things go wrong. They might have some serious FFP problems.
This isn’t a rebuild this is a mess
You mean PSG didn't break the market when they signed Neymar?
How chelsea broke the transfer market and still had a horrible season
Wrong! Transfer window broke Chelsea 😂
a 100m signing in my eyes was something only the top 5/6 clubs in the world could do and they’d do it once every 4/5 years when they needed a ready made world class player. Chelsea scrapped this idea and bought 2 youngsters with amazing potential but not guarantee in quality at all
Enzo already is guaranteed quality?
Completely immoral football club at the top.
It will come back to bite them.
Those contracts for the players sound poor there agents should have done better. If they underperform they will get stitched up and turfed out. And in a league with lots of money and competition that could happen quite regularly.
Their contracts are guaranteed. Why would they accept turfed out for a pay cut? Winston Bogarde didn't
Even if they are guaranteed if they are not successful at chelsea then those contracts will hurt there chances of a fresh start elsewhere. Also with such long contracts no need to give them an improved wage just feels like they have been poorly adviced.
I'm not a Chelsea fan at all, but I think there's NOTHING WRONG with what Chelsea are doing.
Yes, you get around FFP, but there's a risk that comes with that. You might end up with 5 more Winston Boagardes! 😅
they're ruining football, there's a lot wrong with it
@@davidsoup1738 Football has long been ruined. Chelsea didn't start the Galactico era. They're riding the wave like every other Saudi backed club.
Why hasn't this amortization "trick" been used before? Surely it's not because top accountants weren't aware of it
probably because of the huge risk of someone turning out to be a dud and being able to just sit on the books for 7 more years
Isn't this was Barcelona was doing?
It's because having contacts that long is absolutely stupid in football. Boehly doesn't understand how football works and is just trying to run Chelsea like an American sports franchise. A couple of years down the line this is going to be disastrous
because it can easily backfire and sink a club for a long time
and don't call me Shirley
Because British goverment literally stole the club away from Ambramović
And look at them now, smh
I feel like Chelsea breaks the transfer market every year. 🤦♂️
Which club is he refering to in the orange when he mentions two clubs wanted Enzo? 1:29
Liverpool and arsenal
You forgot Christopher nkunku bro
They've just purchased ecuadorian forward 15 year old. Kendry Paez for 18mil.
Psg were actually at fault n tbh when a club owner is out with his advisor on deadline day to secure a £100+ million player couldn’t psg have thought this out bettr rather than get screws during the deadline day
Rivals are failing to realize that 1) Most of these players have only been at Chelsea for 2 months 2) A quality manager is needed to bring it all together then Chelsea will succeed at least give them a full season
Get in Zidane
Maybe I am wrong about this, but what would be the insentive of the player not to run down his long and possibly well payed contract if he flops? For example, Enzo turns out to be a gigantic miss and he turns out to be horrible (again, speaking in hypotheticals here) and no other good club would want him? Wouldn't it create a situation where he would just want to run down his crazy long contract, and just collect a paycheck every month for the next 8 years to the harm of the club? We have examples of players running down 4 year contracts just to collect the money, so what would prevent 8 year contracts from being ran down, especially given the fact that chelsea have a bloated roster which guarantees one of these 1 year contracts will flop. In the american sports you would solve this by just trading away the contract but in Europe that does not work that way.
It’s most definitely risky. Enzo is already looking like one of the best midfielders in the entire league though. Mudryk I am not so sure about I could see that costing us in the future 😭
I would agree on the risk of that happening to certain players, not Enzo though, that guy is devoted to be the best player he can be like no other, and it shows, he looks levels above the rest every time he plays. One would think the scouting network has background into account when choosing which players to go for.
Hristijan Zdravkovski Yes, you are wrong about this. You ask..what would be the incentive for a player to run down his long & well paid contract if he flops'. Well, just ask yourself, how many players in the Premier Lge have you seen do this? How many players who flop in their first, & maybe second, season & who have a 5 year contract have you seen refuse to be sold & instead run down the remaining 3 or 4 years of their well paid contract?
Here's a good example: Lukaku signs an extremely well paid 5 year contract with Chelsea. After just one season of where he was a flop, his club, Chelsea, wanted to move him on. No club could afford his transfer fee AND could match his Chelsea wages. So what happened, did he run down the remaining 4 years of his contract & continue to pick up his very lucrative wages? No, he chose to take a big cut in wages & join another club where he could continue playing football.
Lukaku could easily have told Chelsea he was refusing to go to another club but instead he would run down the remaining 4 years of his contract.
The reality is that it virtually never happens that a player decides he would rather sit in the stands on matchdays & play no football for a few years simply because it is financially beneficial to do so.
A professional footballers career is short, the last thing they want is to miss playing for a few years & to do so because of money reasons.
I've supported Chelsea for 54 years, since I was 6 years old, & in all that time I can only think of one or two players who stubbornly refused to leave the club & instead insist on running down the remaining years of their contract.
One player was Winston Bogarde & he stayed the course & remained at the club right up until the last day of his contract.
Another player who threatened to do it & did do it for a short while was Florent Malouda. He made noises about not leaving & running down his contract & for a short while he did. But it didn't take long for him to change his mind & come to his senses. Other than that I'm struggling to think of another Chelsea player who did this.
You claim you know of examples where players refused to leave their club & instead ran down the last 4 years of their contracts. It would have been nice if you had given the names of some of these players.
Do you REALLY think somebody who is as rare as a Premiership standard football player & who has very probably spent years dreaming of making the big time, would really be prepared to sacrifice as many as 6 or 7 years of his career, sacrifice the prime years of his career, because he won't take a wage cut from, say, £100k per week to £60k per week? If he doesn't play any football for as long as, say, 5 years, then it's very possible it would be the end of his career. Do you REALLY think 99% of footballers would be prepared to do this?
11 o'clock faxing 😂😂
That move was crazy. Did they want or not want to loan him out? Even more bizzare thing happened. Ziyech was used as starting lineup in the immediate game after that saga. So the whole thing is to fool and make fun of PSG!
The fact they turned what was a small loop hole into massive hole in the wall is mad
I know my opinion doesn't matter but all these extremely wealthy club owners are destroying football.
Cry harder bruv 💙
And now this has aged poorly
Enzo was the only good signing out of that 600m
yea thats big boy american business baby
But there's no new information here. We already knew all this. I'm failing to see the point of this video.
Amazing
3 years time. “Are Chelsea the new Leeds?”
just like 3 years before that, and 3 years before that, and 3 years before that. etc...
keep hoping though
Like like Chelsea will get liquidated last year? 😭😂
@@InvaderZim742 I’ve never thought it remotely possible until now.
You’re right though I’m sure this approach that no other club has ever thought is a good idea will work out just fine for you.
@@DavidC-fk2wg I'm sure the club will be just fine with an extra £60m a season on the books. Make far more in player sales every season. Thanks for your concern.
Was the secret ingredient crime?
The Dodgers spend the equivalent of a small country's gdp every year and still can't win the World Series on a regular basis.
This high spending by Chelsea will get them trophies, but it will not get them regular success. It's better to have a team that functions and makes sense than what Chelsea are building, there's no clear vision to what they're doing and it's hilarious.
Boehly took a gamble and it looks like it hasnt paid off. He wont get half of what he paid for these players, he was basically trying to inflate the market, running a football club like a stock exchange does not work.
Even with the trick of long contracts and amortization I'm still expecting to hear Chelsea getting penalized for FFP violations in the next few years
Like Man City and Everton?
why? Chelsea aren't hiding anything and know exactly what they need to do to balance the books. They've been extremely smart about it which is why they don't breach FFP
Salty?
@@InvaderZim742 It seems a reasonable bet to assume that a team that spent more money than 4 entire leagues combined in a single transfer window wasn't exactly following all the rules
@@jpthomas9491 unfortunately for you that's just now how it works. Chelsea are going to sell players in the summer to balance the books. That's just a fact.
So so good
Saka>Mudryk
THE MIGHTY CHELSEA
Still I am not impressed. Most of these players will not be elite talents. Also Enzo transfer is not a healthy way of doing it. Benfica bought the player 6 months ago for 12M Euros and after 6 months, you pay 120 for the player. This shows how the scouting is a fail and makes the club poor both financially and inwardly.
Armchair football expert should really look at some basic accounting. When you talk about cost and contract length you need to have a basic understanding that in accounting the cost of any asset is spread over a number of fiscal years, until its replacement. A player is a club asset and so the end of use is the end of the contract of that player.
The title suggests Chelsea have done something good. Instead they've overspent on just decent players and are stuck with these players for 8+ years even if they are massive flops
They broke it back in 2003
So Chelsea now have a team with a lot of new additions on lesser wages. Definitely a stable situation. If they do well they'll be pushing for an increase at which point Chelsea will do what ..... ?
it's an absolute mess. it can see it becoming a worse crisis than man united (pre ten hag). compare it to brighton, and it's the complete opposite of how to run a football club
@@anb2456 They have bought many experienced directors which did great at having good transfers at other clubs. Its only been half year they start working. To become like Brighton, they need few years.
Robert Smith. Chelsea will do what? Isn't it bloody obvious? They will either agree that a wage increase is fully deserved & approve a wage increase but if they don't feel a wage increase would be justified then they will remind the player he is on an eight year contract & therefore all the power is with the club.
However, I think it's well known that Chelsea are a club that history shows doesn't tend to have too many wage disputes with their players. This basically stems from the fact that Chelsea are one of the very best payers in the game.
Nothing complex about this, been doing it on football manager for close to a decade noq
Zyiech was left stranded in Paris with looking for somewhere to stay 😂😂😂😂😂, excuse me , was he stranded in the middle of north pole or Paris? This is hilarious and not in a good way 😂😂😂