We're A Selling Club, 'Redefined'.

[coolhead23 1,147]

_{Not sure if we have found a "niche" here ... aren't the Portugal clubs already doing the same specially Porto ... they make loads of money by selling their players, maybe we went little more younger ...}

_{Arsenal is another example who have become a feeder club (off late) ...
We have take this on another level ... Our Men in Black really have done a great job and it wouldn't be a ease benchmark to keep up with ...}

_{The only f*** up with this "could be" if every one follow our roadmap is that the younger players would start getting damn expensive}

_{And the debate going on outside that we are ruining youth is just stupid and naive ... infact we are making sure that our youth (or any young player who joins us) are atleast trying to fight for place in team who are playing competitive football across various league (I would love them to start in our 11 but ...) rather than being struck in only youth teams and reserves.}

[Spike 12,049]

This is what Ajax have been doing forever. It's nothing new. Ajax bring up a talent and the sells them for a soild price increase. Ibrahimovic, Van der Vaart, Sneijder, Eriksen, de Jong, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, van der Wiel, Suarez, Bergkamp, van der Sar, Frank and Ronald de Boer, Overmars, van Basten among others.

They may be far away from their heyday but they are very competitive in the Netherlands and they are financially healthy.

[Heisenberg 1,824]

I do not find any negatives in this approach, its a win win situation for both the players and the club.If the young player is loaned and explode like Lukaku and De Bruyne they'll be either part of the first team if José find a place for them, if not we can sell them for a great fee, which will result of us getting players on top that will fill the real needs (Like Fabregas and Costa).So the young player if he cant find a place here, he'll be in a top club, rather than vegetating in reserves.I dont know but I feel its a nice little revolution.

[Fernando 6,595]

Guys there's a difference.

Porto and Ajax have them in their team, we just loan them and then sell them.

While as some people view it as unethical I say as long as we are not breaking any rules anything is fine.

[Heisenberg 1,824]

Guys there's a difference.

Porto and Ajax have them in their team, we just loan them and then sell them.

While as some people view it as unethical I say as long as we are not breaking any rules anything is fine.

Unethical......as long as we will not be accused of pedophily ( you never know with UEFA ) we can do whatever we want with our players, that belongs to us and that accepted this chance to prove their talent.

[Vybz Kartel 1,613]

Are you sure we've ruined their careers? Not sure how Mata's relevant, but KDB is a regular for Belgium already- as is Lukaku- both have secured big money moves to very good clubs. Van Aanholts now got the chance to play in the PL with Sunderland and Bertrand's been capped by England. A lot of these players get more opportunities based on the reputation and profile of the club

I also don't get why loans are so bad, players get sent to clubs at a level that suits them and can progress to loans at bigger clubs. What we're doing doesn't seem a whole lot different to what Porto etc have done for years and far more ethical then third party ownership in players

I didint say we ruined any of Mata, Lukaku or De bruyne, but we have ruined many careers like Mccheran, Bertrand, Kakuta, Van Aanholt to name a few

[kc_blue 265]

Not sure we've ruined any of those players careers. Some bad loans didn't help them but they either have what it takes or not. And as it has turned out they haven't had what it takes to make it at Chelsea. Making a comment that we ruined their careers is crazy. There's no way to tell how things would have played out and they would have developed if things had been different. Did we deny them a chance to compete and show what they talent they have? That would be the only way I could see any justification for a comment like ruining a career. If we had just left them in the reserves and let them rot, then maybe we would have ruined their careers. Maybe, just maybe they just weren't as good as some thought they were going to be earlier in their careers. It happens.

[Term-X 7,891]

This is what Ajax have been doing forever. It's nothing new. Ajax bring up a talent and the sells them for a soild price increase. Ibrahimovic, Van der Vaart, Sneijder, Eriksen, de Jong, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, van der Wiel, Suarez, Bergkamp, van der Sar, Frank and Ronald de Boer, Overmars, van Basten among others.

They may be far away from their heyday but they are very competitive in the Netherlands and they are financially healthy.

It's very new, no club has ever operated like this before, not on this scale. As Fernando has rightfully mentioned, those Porto & Ajax players were part of the team and grew within the first eleven. The difference is that we stockpile youths, who are Chelsea players by 'technicality only', the numbers don't lie. It's clearly a ploy, as madmax mentioned we had to find some way to combat FFP, and this was it.

[The Rising Sun 711]

Most countries in europe are allowed third party ownership players and therefore get alot of players for much lesser than their value, since sporting funds and companies own majority shares in the players and clubs are only buying a certain percentage when acquiring a player.

We are not allowed that in england and this is just another way to make money of young talents.

We have the ability to place them in better clubs due to their association with us and more often than not, they get into the club of their standard and we earn some money as well.

We should produce some youth now since our project has more or less completed its aims in terms of trophies and prestige.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Lukaku was sold for £28 million, but people forget the loan fees - £4 million in total. As TX says, we've found a way of usurping the FFP regulations. Our transfer policy is absolutely magnificent. I really have to give it to Gourlay and Emenalo, because they're making UEFA look stupid.

[Fernando 6,595]

I actually think if Mourinho stays for some time at the club we would make a lot of money in the long run.

Cause think about that one example at Real Madrid with Varane. How Mourinho was very influential in the growth of Varane in the years he was there?

Say Mourinho has a positive impact in Zouma, Ake and such just by playing them here and there it will increase their value.

Look at how people though highly of Kalas after "only" that game against Liverpool.

So if this is something the board and Mourinho is on about, the profits will increase by implementing such role that Mourinho has talked about. Bringing two youths into the team every season.

If so one happens to be outstandingly amazing then one of our seniors we will keep them.

But this bringing of the youth into the team will increase the awareness and value of these youngsters.

Destroying their careers? Hardly, we actually letting them use us as a platform to launch their careers forward if they don't stay at the club.

[Rmpr 8,977]

What you posted is flawed because you dont take into consideration the amount of money spent while those players were in loan or at our youth academy!

It is not free to maintain those things, so the net profit goes down to almost zero...

[SinineUltra 1,170]

What you posted is flawed because you dont take into consideration the amount of money spent while those players were in loan or at our youth academy!

It is not free to maintain those things, so the net profit goes down to almost zero...

And how much does it cost to Chelsea to have a player on loan or part of the youth academy with other youngsters?

[Fernando 6,595]

What you posted is flawed because you dont take into consideration the amount of money spent while those players were in loan or at our youth academy!

It is not free to maintain those things, so the net profit goes down to almost zero...

Actually FFP does not counts the youth academy expenditure.

It's like a tax write off.

[Term-X 7,891]

What you posted is flawed because you dont take into consideration the amount of money spent while those players were in loan or at our youth academy!

It is not free to maintain those things, so the net profit goes down to almost zero...

We got £18m for KDB, who signed for £6.7m and had only been at the club for 2 years prior. Not to mention what Alex mentioned about the loan fees we received..

And what do you mean by 'youth academy'?, to have them at our academy isn't costing anything on the FFP books, it's excluded.

[Tomo 21,751]

I didint say we ruined any of Mata, Lukaku or De bruyne, but we have ruined many careers like Mccheran, Bertrand, Kakuta, Van Aanholt to name a few

So we ruined them, nothing to with the fact that those players listed didn't do enough? It's our fault Van Aanholt can't defend for shit? It's our fault Kakuta is a lazy clown who couldn't be bothered to realise his potential?

Works both ways, or do you believe it's our fault Conor Clifford plays in league 2?

Why do you have to be negative all the time? Your making lionsden look like special juan.

[Fernando 6,595]

Been reading some articles about our policy with youths.

Seems like a lot of butt hurts out there that we are doing such a good business.

[The Rising Sun 711]

Earler on i used to buy phones and once i bought a new one, i still kept the old one in my drawer.

Of late, when i buy a new phone i sell my old one and use that money towards buying the new one.

Just Saying!!

[Term-X 7,891]

Nice article by Jake Cohen covering this system..

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/8/4/5964691/romelu-lukaku-everton-chelsea-finances

Part of the reason costs are so low is because for Chelsea's best prospects, not only are their wages covered by the loanee club, but there's a loan fee on top of that. For example, the combined FFP cost of Thibaut Courtois, Romelu Lukaku, and Victor Moses was £2.5m last season (or less than two months worth of Fernando Torres).