Chelsea Transfers

[Vesper 28,795]

9 hours ago, TheHulk said:

Great work pissing them off a few weeks ago.

We are under NO obligation to pay their taxes. If that was the case Neymar to PSG would have been around €300m. If we pay them 120m euros and Enzo agrees to terms, no way can Benfica block it. They would be instantly in contractual violation and would get crushed in court.

[NikkiCFC 7,944]

We rejected Ronaldo. That's positive. 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

3 hours ago, Vesper said:

Massive restraint of trade lawsuit inbound. FUCK UEFA.

Exactly. The end result of this attempt to restrict what Chelsea have done will be that everybody can do it. The restrictions which already apply in much of Europe will end up being overturned if a restraint of trade case goes to court.

Meanwhile, I particularly like the last two words of your message.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

4 hours ago, Vesper said:

We are under NO obligation to pay their taxes. If that was the case Neymar to PSG would have been around €300m. If we pay them 120m euros and Enzo agrees to terms, no way can Benfica block it. They would be instantly in contractual violation and would get crushed in court.

The taxes buying clubs might pay in relation to buyout clauses are those for which the player is liable.

I'm not sure that Enzo's applicable tax rate would be 25%, as implied by the €160m gross to produce €120m net story. If it is however, and we refused to cover the taxes, Enzo would net €90m from our €120m and I don't see where he'd get €30m to make up the shortfall. Unless perhaps he accepted a pay reduction over the length of his contract to cover the money. Maybe he would accept such a big reduction, but probably he wouldn't. Certainly the calculations are much more complicated than we, or at least I, realise.

Edited January 25, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie

[Superblue 6,370]

4 hours ago, Vesper said:

Massive restraint of trade lawsuit inbound. FUCK UEFA.

 

24 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Exactly. The end result of this attempt to restrict what Chelsea have done will be that everybody can do it. The restrictions which already apply in much of Europe will end up being overturned if a restraint of trade case goes to court.

Meanwhile, I particularly like the last two words of your message.

Not sure whether it would be quite as simple as that.

UEFA aren't preventing us from offering longer contracts to players, so I'm not sure a restraint of trade is as present as it looks.

Given that UEFA's FFP rules aren't as cut and dry as standard accounting rules (i.e. they allow for a number of expenses to be not included in their FFP calculations), I struggle to see where one could argue with them changing certain aspects over time so long as sufficient time is provided and they're not going back to change things retrospectively. 

I would much prefer that they didn't do this, as it is clearly a plan that Chelsea have mapped out to allow for more spending now to get the team rebuilt. Not quite sure just how much more has or was planned, I would expect the transfer spending to calm down after the summer window anyway. However looking beyond Chelsea for a minute, I can understand UEFA deciding to close the loophole, mainly because there are countries that are restricted to the length of contract that can be given out as this is based on its own country's contract law and legislation, hence it's not leaving a level playing field in that regard.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

2 minutes ago, Superblue said:

UEFA aren't preventing us from offering longer contracts to players, so I'm not sure a restraint of trade is as present as it looks.

Yes, you are right of course.

[Magic Lamps 11,653]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The taxes buying clubs might pay in relation to buyout clauses are those for which the player is liable.

I'm not sure that Enzo's applicable tax rate would be 25%, as implied by the €160m gross to produce €120m net story. If it is however, and we refused to cover the taxes, Enzo would net €90m from our €120m and I don't see where he'd get €30m to make up the shortfall. Unless perhaps he accepted a pay reduction over the length of his contract to cover the money. Maybe he would accept such a big reduction, but probably he wouldn't. Certainly the calculations are much more complicated than we, or at least I, realise.

It is somewhat like that. If we indeed were to make use of the b.o. we would need to give Enzo the full amount, 160m for him to pay off Benfica. From what I have heard, taxes on transfer fees in Spain and Portugal only apply on b.o. clause deals. Now there is a gentlemen's agreement between clubs to settle deals pertaining buy out clauses at just under the full amount, like 119 999 999 in this case so the tax does not apply. Unfortunately,a we might possibly have pissed off Benfica so much they would not abide with the unwritten agreement and insist on the formal process.

[Superblue 6,370]

35 minutes ago, Magic Lamps said:

It is somewhat like that. If we indeed were to make use of the b.o. we would need to give Enzo the full amount, 160m for him to pay off Benfica. From what I have heard, taxes on transfer fees in Spain and Portugal only apply on b.o. clause deals. Now there is a gentlemen's agreement between clubs to settle deals pertaining buy out clauses at just under the full amount, like 119 999 999 in this case so the tax does not apply. Unfortunately,a we might possibly have pissed off Benfica so much they would not abide with the unwritten agreement and insist on the formal process.

I would highly doubt that. If we did confirm we'd pay the release clause, I think they'd accommodate for it.

It would be foolish on their behalf not to, as our owners aren't going away anytime soon and they don't know in the future when they might want a player from Chelsea, especially on loan if we start tapping more into markets such as South America (and in doing so, essentially stepping on their toes).

They will likely also be acutely aware that Portugal is one of the main countries being touted for where we'd like an affiliate club, so dealings with Chelsea's ownership may become more frequent and important in the future too. Fair enough them standing their ground on price, but if we agreed to it, it would be silly for them to spite that.

[Vesper 28,795]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Yes, you are right of course.

Disagree, it DOES have a negative material effect, as the disallowing of longer contract-derived mitigation of FFP strictures precludes previously allowed accounting procedures- Also it is clearly aimed at singling us out, which shows deliberate disparate impact.

[Vesper 28,795]

1 hour ago, Superblue said:

hence it's not leaving a level playing field

we already have multiple unlevel practices, such as some nations requiring release clauses, and other nations not requiring them

[Vesper 28,795]

Franck Kessie won’t leave Barcelona, Xavi confirms (per Romano)

YES!🙂

[Vesper 28,795]

On 23/01/2023 at 18:49, DDA said:

Comon man I don't have Twitter

you do not need a twitter account to read tweets

[Superblue 6,370]

40 minutes ago, Vesper said:

we already have multiple unlevel practices, such as some nations requiring release clauses, and other nations not requiring them

Yes, it'll never be a complete level playing field, none more so than individual countries domestic rights and sponsorships, and as mentioned earlier, they can't legally enforce a prevention of us offering longer than 5 year contracts so long as our country's law and legislation will oblige.

But I can understand them doing so in order to allow all clubs across UEFA to account for transfer fees and amortisation practices in the same manner.

[Pizy 18,368]

Hopefully some Malo Gusto progress or update today. Be nice to get him in in time for Fulham so Reece can have even longer to rehab and be eased into the team.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

Disagree, it DOES have a negative material effect, as the disallowing of longer contract-derived mitigation of FFP strictures precludes previously allowed accounting procedures- Also it is clearly aimed at singling us out, which shows deliberate disparate impact.

That would be a much less clear case to make and, I think, a losing one: -

All rule changes are designed to alter circumstances so that something which was previously allowed becomes disallowed, or that something previously disallowed becomes allowable. Nothing unusual in itself there.

Considering that we, and other UK clubs, are currently advantaged by uefa regulations, and that many clubs can plausibly regard the status quo as being unfair, courts are not likely to support an argument that we would be disadvantaged by that situation being corrected.

If challenged, I still think a court would force uefa to remove its five-year ceiling on contract length. I believe the five-Year amortisation cap would survive at challenge however. It isn't impacting the length of contracts clubs can offer to employees, and nor is it dictating how long clubs can take to pay transfer fees. It only affects the rules of membership to an organisation and I would expect the courts to leave that alone.

[milka 3,346]

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

 

[Pizy 18,368]

Will be pretty awesome to have so many young French national team members in the squad building up chemistry.