Financial Fair Play

[Madmax 9,219]

Source : http://chelseaindex.com/1261/chelsea-and-transfers-an-evolving-outlook.html

[Blue Lion 5]

Lol. What food should sponsor Chelsea?

[Madmax 9,219]

Gourlay's been speaking about FFP and the loan system, says 13-14 accounts will show a profit

[BlueLyon 9,359]

Thought that Abramovic and Gazprom will make some sort of bypass of Ffp with giant contract tbh. We all know Roman and Gazprom are close and sure they could make something. In that case we wouldnt even need that big contract from main sponsor.

[TacticalBlues 2,817]

Arsenal’s wage bill moves ahead of Chelsea’s

[Jase 43,479]

Jose Mourinho stokes up row with Manchester City by claiming clubs must be docked points for failing FFP

[Viper22 2,418]

Anyone fancy raising their blood pressure by reading this crock of shit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29349740

Genuine quotes from that article:

"Far from implementing a true financial fair play, this rule is in fact a prohibition to invest that prevents ambitious owners to develop their clubs" - MCFC Supporters Association

"The FFP ruling will restrict the incomes of players and agents, reduce transfer activity and ensure that Europe's larger clubs remain dominant" - Jean-Louis Dupont

Restrict the income of players? Is he having a fucking laugh? Over in the NW of England a fat granny shagging tool is earning 300k A WEEK. How you could you EVER restrict that kind of income? He could buy the fucking country within a few years. What an absolute toss-pot.

As a side note, usually get on well with City fans and extremely disappointed that they've come out supporting this bender. The FFP rulings started at the start of the 13-14 season and they had been warned well in advance about these laws coming in. Why not dispute them then? Rather than falling foul of them then crying like little bitches and trying to get out of their (very lenient) punishment. As well as that, by the time the restrictions came in they arguably had the best squad in the damn league, it's not like they NEEDED to spend all of that money, they did it just because they could. If we can break even over the last 2/3 years then they can too. Jose is right, points need to be docked, otherwise they will not stop, and if they get away with it then what the hell is the point of any club following the rules if you can disobey them and just walk away scot-free?

[Tomo 21,741]

  On 16/09/2014 at 15:16, BlueLyon said:

Thought that Abramovic and Gazprom will make some sort of bypass of Ffp with giant contract tbh. We all know Roman and Gazprom are close and sure they could make something. In that case we wouldnt even need that big contract from main sponsor.

It would be hilarious if Gazprom give us more than addidas give United.

[Blue Lion 5]

Players and player agents definitely do not earn enough!!! I hope the players union go on strike.

[didierforever 7,349]

  On 25/09/2014 at 19:39, Blue Lion said:

Players and player agents definitely do not earn enough!!! I hope the players union go on strike.

with rooney leading the charge !!!!

[calculatingInfinity 1,467]

I wouldn't laugh at that argument just yet, Jean-Louis Dupont probably knows what he is doing. Also don't forget that FFP isn't just about world star players on top teams like City and such, it's also teams from Malta, Latvia and all kinds of places you probably have never even heard of a footballer from... So the argument while maybe seeming silling for the big clubs, that he is actually doing it for, it works on the other levels too and could very well be seen as a breach of european competition law.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,916]

  On 24/09/2014 at 16:53, Viper22 said:

Anyone fancy raising their blood pressure by reading this crock of shit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29349740

"Far from implementing a true financial fair play, this rule is in fact a prohibition to invest that prevents ambitious owners to develop their clubs" - MCFC Supporters Association

This is 95% correct. if you replace the word 'prevents' with 'very severely restricts the ability of' then MCFC Supporters' Association would have this 100% right.

"The FFP ruling will restrict the incomes of players and agents, reduce transfer activity and ensure that Europe's larger clubs remain dominant" - Jean-Louis Dupont.

Two-thirds of this MUST be true. This or that individual player/agent might not be affected but, with FFP forcing many clubs to spend less than they would like to, the OVERALL amount paid to players and agents WILL definitely be restricted.

The bit which is not necessarily true is the claim that transfer activity will be reduced. Once FFP settles down it may only mean that the number of transfers stays the same but the fees paid will just be lower than they would have been without FFP.

[Viper22 2,418]

  On 26/09/2014 at 12:23, OhForAGreavsie said:

"Far from implementing a true financial fair play, this rule is in fact a prohibition to invest that prevents ambitious owners to develop their clubs" - MCFC Supporters Association

This is 95% correct. if you replace the word 'prevents' with 'very severely restricts the ability of' then MCFC Supporters' Association would have this 100% right.

"The FFP ruling will restrict the incomes of players and agents, reduce transfer activity and ensure that Europe's larger clubs remain dominant" - Jean-Louis Dupont.

Two-thirds of this MUST be true. This or that individual player/agent might not be affected but, with FFP forcing many clubs to spend less than they would like to, the OVERALL amount paid to players and agents WILL definitely be restricted.

The bit which is not necessarily true is the claim that transfer activity will be reduced. Once FFP settles down it may only mean that the number of transfers stays the same but the fees paid will just be lower than they would have been without FFP.

This is the bit I was focussing on getting annoyed about. Boo hoo player might have to only earn 290k a week rather than 300k a week. They'll be on the dole next.

And you're right about the number of transfers, but I think it will go the other way, smaller transfer fees will increase the number of transfers I reckon.

And no it does not stop ambitious owners developing their clubs. Youth set ups, training facilities etc. are outside of the FFP remit, so don't come under consideration. Would just mean clubs could no longer buy ALL ready made stars any more, they'd either have to promote from within or sign young and cheap.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,916]

  On 26/09/2014 at 13:06, Viper22 said:

This is the bit I was focussing on getting annoyed about. Boo hoo player might have to only earn 290k a week rather than 300k a week. They'll be on the dole next.

And you're right about the number of transfers, but I think it will go the other way, smaller transfer fees will increase the number of transfers I reckon.

And no it does not stop ambitious owners developing their clubs. Youth set ups, training facilities etc. are outside of the FFP remit, so don't come under consideration. Would just mean clubs could no longer buy ALL ready made stars any more, they'd either have to promote from within or sign young and cheap.

Agreed about youth development and this is why I say 'severely restricts' is a better description than 'prevents'. There are some things to note about this however: -

It takes a l-o-n-g time, and a degree of luck, to develop players through the youth ranks. For example, our revamped accademy (by common consent the old one was not fit for purpose) was set up 9 years ago. Many people have complained that we have not yet managed to produce any first team graduates but the truth is that it is still TOO SOON to judge how well Neil Bath and his team are doing. The kids who are true products of the new system, those who joined the youngest age group in that first season at Cobham, are still only 16/17.

Many (not all, I know but many) of the older lads who have knocked, or are knocking, at the door of the first team are not true accademy products; they were bought in. Bear in mind that any transfer fees and other costs of recruitment paid for youngsters who are 'bought in' DO count against FFP.

A few decades ago we were all told we had to copy the Dutch system of youth development because they 'knew' how to churn out talented players. Then, when that production line slowed down, we were told to follow the Clairefontaine model. Until that went out of fashion too. We were then off to Barcelona but where are Barca recruiting from now? The fact is there is an element of luck involved in finding players of the right quality for the level your club competes at. All your academy can realistically do is help young men become the best players they can. No academy in the world is going to turn an 8 year old Joey Barton into a 21 year old Lionel Messi.

In order to turn out world class footballers an academy needs world class prospects to walk through the door in the first place. The quality of player that just happened to grow up together in Holland made the Dutch system look good for a while. The system made them as good as they could be, but if they turned out to be great that was because they had great talent to begin with. The same was true for the French system and so too with Barcelona. Man Utd have had a world class youth system since 1948 but how has that been helping them recently? Just having a great youth structure is no guarantee that you will produce great players.

[Jase 43,479]

Chelsea finances: High-flying Blues set to announce record £20m profits

[Jype 6,398]

Chelsea FC announces annual profit

£18.4m to be precise. I made a prediction in this thread a few months ago that for the 13/14 season the club would be posting a nice profit and I wasn't wrong. Bear in mind that these figures don't even include the sales of Luiz, Lukaku, Ba etc. from this summer. The transfer business of 13/14 was around £115m spent on new arrivals and roughly £60m from the sales of Mata and De Bruyne. With the fees being amortized and all that other complicated stuff we can't really draw a clear line

here but surely breaking even on the market this year rather than make a big loss like last year will only give a huge boost to the profits for the 14/15 financial year and even more so if we also manage to pick up some silverware along the way. Good times.

[didierforever 7,349]

-49.4mil - 2012-13

1.4mil - 2011-12

18.4mil - 2013-14

whats our fascination with this .4???

anyways for the upcoming "monitoring period" 2012-15, we have a loss of 30mil pounds so far considering 2012-13 and 2013-14. considering the exemptions, which are 5mil per year (i think) on youth development, we still have a loss of 20mil pounds which is around 25.5 euros. the maximum loss can be 30 mil euros for this monitoring period.

but the sales of luiz, lukaku will be included in the 2014-15 thing (and so far we have a net spend of 0 this season, compared to about 60mil pounds last season), we will easily clear this monitoring period too.

great work by the board. absolutely awesome. COME ON CHELSEA!!!

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

Wait, it is said that 'for the year ended in 30 June 2014', so it means only Mata, Kdb sales included? so that Luiz, Lukaku sales not included yet? really awesome if true.