Jump to content

Chelsea Transfers


Tomo
 Share

Recommended Posts

A relatively simple explanation because many have asked: Chelsea need something like £450m profit (could even be more) from 22/23 and 23/24 player trading to balance the allowable trading loss over the last 3 years (conservatively). I reckon they did around £100m player trading profit in 22/23 with around another £75m so far from Mount, Pulisic, PEA, Livermento sell on profit and Ampadu.

Amortisation rises when you buy and does not fall if you sell a youth player for a pure profit. 

So Caciedo, Lavia and Olise will add not only, say, £35m of amortisation in 23/24 but also, say, £25m of wages. 

That’s more than the likely trading profit of selling Gallagher and Hudson Odoi although assume maybe £12.5m wage saving. But they needed that for the existing deficit before Caciedo etc.

This leaves Chalabah and Broja as profit opportunities. Most of the rest are at best neutral in terms of profits - Ziyech could lose quite a lot, Kepa neutral, Cucurella has a book value so high he can’t be sold for profit, Sterling the same. 

So they are many £10s of millions short of break even under PL P&S in 23/24 even if they managed to just about comply in 22/23 (which I’m skeptical about too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, xPetrCechx said:

A relatively simple explanation because many have asked: Chelsea need something like £450m profit (could even be more) from 22/23 and 23/24 player trading to balance the allowable trading loss over the last 3 years (conservatively). I reckon they did around £100m player trading profit in 22/23 with around another £75m so far from Mount, Pulisic, PEA, Livermento sell on profit and Ampadu.

Amortisation rises when you buy and does not fall if you sell a youth player for a pure profit. 

So Caciedo, Lavia and Olise will add not only, say, £35m of amortisation in 23/24 but also, say, £25m of wages. 

That’s more than the likely trading profit of selling Gallagher and Hudson Odoi although assume maybe £12.5m wage saving. But they needed that for the existing deficit before Caciedo etc.

This leaves Chalabah and Broja as profit opportunities. Most of the rest are at best neutral in terms of profits - Ziyech could lose quite a lot, Kepa neutral, Cucurella has a book value so high he can’t be sold for profit, Sterling the same. 

So they are many £10s of millions short of break even under PL P&S in 23/24 even if they managed to just about comply in 22/23 (which I’m skeptical about too).

So what are you saying?? We are fucked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, xPetrCechx said:

A relatively simple explanation because many have asked: Chelsea need something like £450m profit (could even be more) from 22/23 and 23/24 player trading to balance the allowable trading loss over the last 3 years (conservatively). I reckon they did around £100m player trading profit in 22/23 with around another £75m so far from Mount, Pulisic, PEA, Livermento sell on profit and Ampadu.

Amortisation rises when you buy and does not fall if you sell a youth player for a pure profit. 

So Caciedo, Lavia and Olise will add not only, say, £35m of amortisation in 23/24 but also, say, £25m of wages. 

That’s more than the likely trading profit of selling Gallagher and Hudson Odoi although assume maybe £12.5m wage saving. But they needed that for the existing deficit before Caciedo etc.

This leaves Chalabah and Broja as profit opportunities. Most of the rest are at best neutral in terms of profits - Ziyech could lose quite a lot, Kepa neutral, Cucurella has a book value so high he can’t be sold for profit, Sterling the same. 

So they are many £10s of millions short of break even under PL P&S in 23/24 even if they managed to just about comply in 22/23 (which I’m skeptical about too).

Where did the 450m figure come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, xPetrCechx said:

You can ask him 😁

 

He writes in the comments he’s sure our wages have barely improved and we are all dreaming if we think the players who are joining are agreeing much lower wages than those leaving.

Guess he has an agenda. Am curious to see something written by someone with actual assumptions and numbers in table form included, this guy is just making bold statements with out showing his working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Costa19 said:

Some reports yesterday that Lavia was on his way to do the medical and if thats true we should absolutly get some news soon. 
 
Crazy if Papa B&E took it personal and went full super sayian mode and sign both Lavia and Caicedo

Personally the most believable story here is that Adams’ medical showed up he needs another 4 months of recovery, as some source on twitter posted. After that the subsequent panic for this double purchase begins to make sense, if we do indeed get both (I’m still kind of confused why we would want both unless we are moving to 4-3-3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You