The Board

[Pizy 18,368]

40 minutes ago, Fernando said:

What has happen to Shirt sponsor? 

Have to imagine we’re waiting for final approval from the PL. You’d think the club would be desperate to start getting money for new shirt sales in ASAP. Especially with all these shiny new signings.

We haven’t even officially revealed our away kit yet which is crazy since the season has started. 

[Vesper 28,833]

12 hours ago, Fernando said:

What has happen to Shirt sponsor? 

Other teams alerted on us and thus we are under the cosh due to Clearlake's investment in Infinite Athlete, plus they are questioning the £40m valuation

See this for more info

https://talksport.com/football/1527331/Chelsea-sponsor-leaked-kit-infinite-athlete/

 

 

[Vesper 28,833]

Why Chelsea believe their £900m transfer spending is within FFP rules

https://theathletic.com/4775684/2023/08/15/Chelsea-spending-money-ffp/

For the third transfer window running, Chelsea’s spending is the talk of football.

More specifically, it is Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital’s seemingly insatiable appetite for large transfer fees that is dominating the conversation.

A deal worth £115million ($146m) for Brighton midfielder Moises Caicedo has ensured that Enzo Fernandez held the British transfer record for just six months following his £106million move to Stamford Bridge. Liverpool, edged out in that pursuit, now appear to have been deprived of their secondary midfield target after Southampton’s Romeo Lavia also made his preference Chelsea and the club’s agreed a deal of £53million plus £5million in add ons.

That means Boehly and Clearlake have committed north of £300million in transfer fees on central midfielders alone in 2023 once deals for Lesley Ugochukwu and Andrey Santos are factored in. Overall, the numbers are even more staggering: Lavia takes the total transfer fee commitment past the £900million mark since Chelsea’s new American owners assumed control in June 2022 — and they are not done yet.

A new goalkeeper should replace the loan departure of Kepa Arrizabalaga to Real Madrid, and the club would like to add two more attackers — and all this without the revenue from a primary shirt sponsor (yet), or Champions League participation in 2023-24.

No other club in the world is operating this way, and it is fair to say that Chelsea’s approach is ruffling feathers. There are growing whispers of rival clubs complaining to the Premier League about their spending, the manifestation of a broader disbelief inside and outside the game that such outlay could possibly be compliant with UEFA’s financial fair play (FFP) regulations, which allow clubs to lose around €90million over a three-year period. What is more, last September they were placed on an FFP watchlist by UEFA due to the size of their losses.

Yet Chelsea believe they have a strategy that will keep them on the right side of club football’s financial controls.

The Athletic will endeavour to explain. You — and ultimately football’s governing bodies — can then make your own mind up.

Transfer fees are overrated

A big obstacle to understanding what Chelsea are doing is that the way most people routinely think about football transactions — namely, by focusing almost entirely on the transfer fee — is often not the way that most football clubs think about them. And certainly not Chelsea.

Here is an example: Club A signs a player for £50million and gives him a five-year contract worth £100,000 a week. Club B signs a player on a free transfer and agrees to pay him around £400,000 a week. Which player do you think is more expensive on a yearly basis?

If your answer was Club B’s signing, you are on the right track. A weekly wage of £400,000 equates to an annual salary of a little more than £20million, while the total cost of an amortised £50million transfer fee over a five-year contract with a £100,000-a-week salary on the accounts is around £15million.

Viewed within this context, it is very possible that the most expensive player acquisition in English football history might actually have been Erling Haaland’s move to Manchester City in the summer of 2022, once the Norwegian’s massive salary, signing-on bonus and agent fees are added to his nominally cheap £51million release fee from Borussia Dortmund.

It has been widely documented that Chelsea have exploited the legal limits of amortisation (the process of spreading a transfer fee over the length of a player’s contract for accounting purposes) in order to make their spending money go further. All of their January signings were handed seven- or eight-year contracts, lowering their yearly cost on the books.

UEFA ruled that, from this summer, transfer fees can only be amortised over a maximum of five years regardless of contract length, and the Premier League is likely to follow suit sooner rather than later. But even with the closure of these “FFP loopholes”, amortisation remains a powerful tool to help power Chelsea’s spending. And they’d already used the rule to good effect before the rule change came in.

What is more, Chelsea will not play in European competition this season so do not have to worry about being within UEFA rules for now. They will of course hope they return next season for many reasons, but the Premier League give more leeway and therefore Chelsea more time to sort themselves out.

So they believe they are all right. Others are less sure…

---

Chelsea are selling, not just buying. But is it enough?

Boehly and Clearlake have generated more than £250million from player sales in the past three transfer windows. Around £200million of that has been made this summer, primarily through the departures of Kai Havertz to Arsenal, Mason Mount to Manchester United, Mateo Kovacic to Manchester City and Kalidou Koulibaly and Edouard Mendy to Saudi Pro League clubs.

That figure comes nowhere near to balancing Chelsea’s outlay on transfer fees but, for accounting purposes, it does not need to. Transfer fees for player sales are registered in full on the books immediately, minus the player’s remaining amortised cost.

The good news for Boehly and Clearlake is that the majority of the players they have sold in this window had either been at the club long enough to have relatively small remaining book values (Havertz, Kovacic and Christian Pulisic) or are Cobham academy graduates (Mount and Ruben Loftus-Cheek), who represent pure profit when sold.

Havertz, Mount and Kovacic alone netted Chelsea close to £100million in accounting profit on player sales. That in theory could bankroll as much as £500million in transfer fees amortised over five-year contracts, without tipping the club into the red on player trading in the books. It would of course mean that income needs to consistently come in over the five years in order to keep ‘paying off’ the fees for incoming transfers.

Chelsea’s estimated amortised spending in the past three windows under Boehly and Clearlake, using initial transfer figures reported by The Athletic, comes to £157.2million; this significantly lower number is almost entirely offset by an accounting profit from player sales of £149.6million over the same period.

It is clear to see, then, that big clubs have more room than they might first appear to manoeuvre in the transfer market without falling foul of FFP — and the restrictions themselves are loosening; from the 2023-24 season, clubs judged to be in good financial health could be permitted to lose as much as €90million over a three-year monitoring period, triple the old limit of €30million.

Because a club’s accounts are published almost a year after the relevant deals take place, it is currently too early to know if Chelsea’s current spending will see them post a loss or profit. But in terms of hitting that number over three years of about €90million loss, it is worth bearing in mind that last year’s accounts saw Chelsea post a £121million loss. The season before that saw a £156m loss, which was the second biggest in Premier League history, so the club will need to start turning a profit soon, whether that be through increased player sales, improved commercial deals or a return to the Champions League (where you’d expect to make about £3-4million per home game).

Time will tell, but time is exactly what the amortisation of these transfer fees is buying the ownership.

Boehly and Clearlake identified on arrival that Chelsea were ripe for a massive rebuild, with a combination of expensive players almost fully amortised on the books and an academy that produces a steady conveyer belt of saleable young footballers, as well as a handful of elite prospects good enough to become first-team contributors.

But there is another key aspect to what Chelsea are trying to do…

---

The wage bill is coming down

In the course of the financial due diligence that preceded their takeover last year, Boehly and Clearlake quickly identified that Roman Abramovich had been happily paying what they regarded as a “Chelsea premium” in terms of player salaries.

Base wages were well above the market rate across the board, with almost nothing tied to performance-based incentives such as Champions League participation.

The massive squad turnover at Stamford Bridge over the past year has been as much about shedding contracts as players. Boehly and Clearlake have been determined to bring the club’s salary commitments down to a competitive market level, and they are well aware that the earning expectations of footballers tend to rise as they get older.

Since the restructuring of their football operation around co-sporting directors Laurence Stewart and Paul Winstanley at the start of 2023, Chelsea have placed renewed emphasis on targeting players aged 23 or younger, with Christopher Nkunku (whose transfer was agreed almost a year ago), Axel Disasi and goalkeeper Robert Sanchez the only exceptions.

Younger players tend to be more amenable to lower base salaries with performance incentives, which gives Chelsea the opportunity to start them at a more affordable level and then reward the best performers with pay rises as time goes by. Lavia will almost certainly be on a lower wage as he begins his career at Stamford Bridge than former Southampton team-mate James Ward-Prowse is on at West Ham.

Chelsea also remain committed to longer contracts even as amortisation benefits are reduced; Boehly and Clearlake believe they give players greater security and the club more protection on the value of their assets. It is hoped that lower salaries across the board will mean players who disappoint at Stamford Bridge will not be as difficult to offload as Romelu Lukaku and Hakim Ziyech, two of the last lavishly paid survivors of the Abramovich era.

There are still some high earners on Chelsea’s books, Raheem Sterling and Nkunku chief among them. But overall, Boehly and Clearlake believe they have saved tens of millions of pounds in annual salary commitments for the first-team squad — money they are re-deploying to spend on transfer fees.

---

Chelsea’s strategy is not without risk

Boehly and Clearlake have essentially re-made Chelsea’s squad as an investment portfolio: a collection of talented young footballers committed to Stamford Bridge for what should be their prime years, but whose transfer values could fall as well as rise depending on any number of variables that can affect individual development.

Not all of the signings are expected to flourish, but the talent identification and development skills of the staff led by Stewart and Winstanley are being backed to ensure the successes outweigh the failures. If they do not, Chelsea will likely under-achieve on the pitch and these amortised fees will add up, limiting their options for correcting course.

One of the Premier League’s oldest squads has been transformed into the youngest by owners attempting to scale up something akin to the recruitment models of Monaco, RB Leipzig and Brighton to power an elite European club. Chelsea must now balance an economic requirement to develop the young talent they have assembled for themselves and for others, with the more immediate football demands of competing at the very top of the sport.

This particular tightrope has never been walked, or arguably even attempted, by a club of such size and recent winning pedigree. Can you lift the Premier League or Champions League with almost exclusively young players? Will assembling a group of players largely in the same age bracket prove an impediment to developing the kind of dressing room dynamic made possible by the best blends of youth and experience?

Boehly and Clearlake are betting the answers to these questions favour them, and that their approach to transfers and squad building puts Chelsea on a path to sustained sporting success as well as financial growth. Everyone else in football will be watching closely to see what happens next.

[Henrique 9,133]

It seems Todd learned from his mistakes. This transfer window was surprisingly good. We finally got rid of boring players like Mount, Kovacic and Havertz and sold them for big money, and we also managed to make money out of Mendy and Koulibaly and even Kepa left the club, and finally the signings are making sense, instead of looking like they were a product of a monkey pressing random keys on a keyboard while "playing" Football Manager.

[Vesper 28,833]

3 hours ago, Henrique said:

It seems Todd learned from his mistakes. This transfer window was surprisingly good. We finally got rid of boring players like Mount, Kovacic and Havertz and sold them for big money, and we also managed to make money out of Mendy and Koulibaly and even Kepa left the club, and finally the signings are making sense, instead of looking like they were a product of a monkey pressing random keys on a keyboard while "playing" Football Manager.

and the window is not done yet

[Vesper 28,833]

wifey said that now it is clear

(and we are both stone cold atheists)

Roman obviously made a deal with the devil

that no matter what crazy moves we did

we would win insane amount of big trophies

and now that deal is dead and gone

😔

[Vytis33 1,142]

20 minutes ago, Vesper said:

wifey said that now it is clear

(and we are both stone cold atheists)

Roman obviously made a deal with the devil

that no matter what crazy moves we did

we would win insane amount of big trophies

and now that deal is dead and gone

😔

I weirdly feel like it's the other way around.  Roman bought the team and ran it for his enjoyment..winning trophies along the way.  The deal with the devil was selling to career businessmen with no passion for what's taking place. 

[Vesper 28,833]

1 minute ago, Vytis33 said:

I weirdly feel like it's the other way around.  Roman bought the team and ran it for his enjoyment..winning trophies along the way.  The deal with the devil was selling to career businessmen with no passion for what's taking place. 

I think they have passion

but lack football experience

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

Its been a difficult first 12 months but 2 games into the season, the change of manager and players, not quite panic stations yet.

Things were always going to get worse before they got better considering his meddling last season and ripping apart a whole footballing infrastructure that had worked to various levels of success with Roman, Petr and Marina. That set us back a bit as he just ripped out the whole thing as opposed to changing wee bits at a time, keeping some continuity. Not to mention the changes of experienced players for a lot of young players. 

Wasn’t impressed with him re Tuchel sacking, Potter or Lampard appointments and the going into the changing room etc but he has put his money where his mouth is. Just signs though that you cannot just throw money at things and expect it to work instantly too.

Will be a make or break 12 months though, if this season isn’t relatively successful ie a top 6 finish then questions again will be asked of the leadership, the direction, the signings etc. We cannot just blame the players or managers this time round as we’ve basically “removed the weeds from the garden” so to put it as people were utterly convinced that there was a lot of players who were causing huge issues as opposed to leadership decisions - which isn’t exactly fair either on the players as they didn’t decide to have 4 different managers last season or recruit £600-700m of players in 2 windows.

Edited August 20, 2023 by OneMoSalah

[Mário César 975]

I think this is the end of us as a top club that fights for titles
many mistakes have been made

we're probably going to spend a lot of difficult years lost in mid-table

[Gundalf 804]

I knew these kind of reactions would come lol. 

From overhyping us during preseason and claiming top 3 minimum with "best midfield in the league" to "all players are rubbish". 🤣

As I said before the season started: somewhere between P5 and P8 is realistic, nothing else. 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Gundalf

[robsblubot 3,504]

11 minutes ago, Gundalf said:

I knew these kind of reactions would come lol. 

From overhyping us during preseason and claiming top 3 minimum with "best midfield in the league" to "all players are rubbish". 🤣

As I said before the season started: somewhere between P5 and P8 is realistic, nothing else. 

Straw man argument.

[Thor 2,392]

7 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

Straw man argument.

It really isn't. 

The same people who said "we need this guy and we're good" are the ones now being feeble and giving up after 2 games into the season. I mean jeez - we won the league with Conte after a horror start. 

We haven't even had our signings properly get integrated or play. We have injuries. Give it a rest. 

None of you want to give anything some time. Pep came in and lost the league after Man City had just previously won it. Like... chill. 

[robsblubot 3,504]

Just now, Thor said:

It really isn't. 

The same people who said "we need this guy and we're good" are the ones now being feeble and giving up after 2 games into the season. I mean jeez - we won the league with Conte after a horror start. 

We haven't even had our signings properly get integrated or play. We have injuries. Give it a rest. 

None of you want to give anything some time. Pep came in and lost the league after Man City had just previously won it. Like... chill. 

Some people did, others didn't. It's a bit more nuanced than that. My stance for example has not changed at all. Did not care about WHU result that much either. I think the ceiling of this team is simply not high enough for what the club requires.

Nobody will "give it a rest" 🙄 -- we want the club to be competitive and be successful. This is a competition not a "best in the show" for young adults. It's not about if Mudryk haircut is cool, but rather can he compete at this level? will he ever be able to?

You can give these players 6 years and without the proper support they will NOT progress. Some may not even reach the potential they actually have, while others never really had that potential to begin with.

[Thor 2,392]

3 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

Some people did, others didn't. It's a bit more nuanced than that. My stance for example has not changed at all. Did not care about WHU result that much either. I think the ceiling of this team is simply not high enough for what the club requires.

Nobody will "give it a rest" 🙄 -- we want the club to be competitive and be successful. This is a competition not a "best in the show" for young adults. It's not about if Mudryk haircut is cool, but rather can he compete at this level? will he ever be able to?

You can give these players 6 years and without the proper support they will NOT progress. Some may not even reach the potential they actually have, while others never really had that potential to begin with.

We're a preseason in with a manager known for developing talent. We haven't even seen all our signings actually play a full game yet. We haven't been able to play the formation we've played in preseason. Just give it a little... 

Once the signings who are meant to be starters get in, then less pressure on some of the current guys and better suited on the bench as impact roles, then the system starts making sense. The hard work and repetitive positive motions become results, etc. 

Would it have been great to have them do what Cesc and Costa did the first game they played? Sure. But - these are younger players, there has been more disruption, and they are getting there. We've looked better. That is a start. 

[robsblubot 3,504]

3 hours ago, Thor said:

We're a preseason in with a manager known for developing talent. We haven't even seen all our signings actually play a full game yet. We haven't been able to play the formation we've played in preseason. Just give it a little... 

Once the signings who are meant to be starters get in, then less pressure on some of the current guys and better suited on the bench as impact roles, then the system starts making sense. The hard work and repetitive positive motions become results, etc. 

Would it have been great to have them do what Cesc and Costa did the first game they played? Sure. But - these are younger players, there has been more disruption, and they are getting there. We've looked better. That is a start. 

That's your opinion; it's fine. I disagree that it will solve the problems the team has. The roster is unbalanced IMO.

It's not the "manager" who develops talent. You can have a manger who is terrible at that, like Mourinho, but it's a number of different factors that help or hurt talent development. Besides, if we don't win, Poch will get sacked like every other manager.

For example, if the team remains uncompetitive for a long time, at the very least, the players will see little Champions League action, which would deprive them of that important experience. Hard to imagine good performers would remain happy in such situation and may force an exit; can't think a player like Enzo would be OK missing CL year after year, for ex.

I don't even know how a long period of unsuccess would affect player's image rights and sponsorship deals.

Edited August 21, 2023 by robsblubot

[Blue Armour 4,289]

8 hours ago, OneMoSalah said:

Its been a difficult first 12 months but 2 games into the season, the change of manager and players, not quite panic stations yet.

Things were always going to get worse before they got better considering his meddling last season and ripping apart a whole footballing infrastructure that had worked to various levels of success with Roman, Petr and Marina. That set us back a bit as he just ripped out the whole thing as opposed to changing wee bits at a time, keeping some continuity. Not to mention the changes of experienced players for a lot of young players. 

Wasn’t impressed with him re Tuchel sacking, Potter or Lampard appointments and the going into the changing room etc but he has put his money where his mouth is. Just signs though that you cannot just throw money at things and expect it to work instantly too.

Will be a make or break 12 months though, if this season isn’t relatively successful ie a top 6 finish then questions again will be asked of the leadership, the direction, the signings etc. We cannot just blame the players or managers this time round as we’ve basically “removed the weeds from the garden” so to put it as people were utterly convinced that there was a lot of players who were causing huge issues as opposed to leadership decisions - which isn’t exactly fair either on the players as they didn’t decide to have 4 different managers last season or recruit £600-700m of players in 2 windows.

Yep, fully agree.

There are many things that I find disagreeable over the past few months (and of course last season)

But not quite panic stations yet. Too soon, and we still have the window open to make one smart buy.

I'm annoyed with  how long we've taken to get midfield reinforcements in, and essentially threw away the opportunity to start our season with a win against good opposition.

But still time to rectify.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Blue Armour

[Vesper 28,833]

Chelsea Supporters’ Trust criticises club after coach travel subsidy removed

https://theathletic.com/4814759/2023/08/29/Chelsea-coach-travel-spending-supporters/

The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust (CST) has criticised the club for its decision to remove the full coach subsidy for domestic away travel.

Chelsea announced on Monday that they had “made the difficult decision to remove the coach subsidy for domestic away travel”. Coaches will still be provided for selected games for both the men’s and women’s teams, with the cost of coach travel announced when tickets go on sale.

The first coach offered was for Chelsea’s trip to Bournemouth on September 17. This would have cost £29 ($36) per person, however, the CST agreed to subsidise this game for anyone who wants to travel, making the fare £10.

Chelsea added that “it was not financially sustainable to continue to offer subsidised coach travel” and that from their away fixture against Burnley, supporters will be advised of the coach cost when it goes on sale.

CST said the “appalling decision will force those who rely on the service to pay significantly more to travel to away fixtures”.

The decision comes just weeks after Chelsea broke the British transfer record after signing Moises Caicedo from Brighton & Hove Albion for £115m. That beat the record they broke initially when they bought Enzo Fernandez in the January transfer window from Benfica for £106m.

Despite recouping around £270m this summer by selling players such as Kai Havertz, Mount and Mateo Kovacic, the west London club have spent more than £900m in three transfer windows since the Todd Boehly-Clearlake Capital takeover.

The CST statement read: “Despite representations from The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust (CST) and coach users, Chelsea FC has unfortunately decided that maintaining the £10 subsidy is not ‘financially sustainable.’ It is important to note that this decision was made in the same year that the club broke the transfer record twice. It is widely rumoured that the coach subsidy budget was approximately 250k.

“Earlier this month, The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust met with club officials in response to online rumours that the coach subsidy would be removed for the 2023-24 season. Chelsea FC clarified that at the time a decision had not been made but confirmed that they were evaluating the subsidy budget.

“During the meeting, The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust made representations to the club. The Trust stated that removing the subsidy entirely would adversely impact the following user groups (not exhaustive): Young supporters, supporters who use wheelchairs and mobility scooters, people who are unable to drive due to cost or medical conditions, supporters who are ambulant disabled, supporters who require to be dropped off very close to the stadium, vulnerable supporters, supporters who rely on this affordable mode of transport to support the club.”

In addition to consulting with the fan advisory board, Chelsea also canvassed views from supporters’ groups and coach users, who were encouraged to contact the club via supporters’ groups and share their thoughts.

“The overwhelming majority of respondents who rely on the service communicated to the club that the coach subsidy must remain in some way and that removing it entirely would outprice supporters and would have disastrous consequences,” The CST statement added.

“Despite the significant feedback from the CST and coach users, the club has subsequently decided that maintaining the subsidy is not financially sustainable. On Friday, the CST again met with the club to communicate that at a time when they should be taking active steps to make football affordable for more people, the decision to remove the subsidy in full is totally unacceptable. This decision also contradicts the commitment to inclusivity that the club guaranteed during takeover discussions held last Spring.

“It appears that during a cost-of-living crisis, Chelsea FC are happy to increase the financial burden on many supporters by penny-pinching.”