The 5 year Amortization process divides the purchase fee over 5 years.
If CFC keep the players for a min of 2- 3 seasons , the majority of the players CFC have brought in will break even, some will make a profit and in 2/3 cases the club may loose, if they do sell the player.
The key seems to be keeping the fee losses down to a minimum and maintaining the 'stock' money available which the club has within fees invested into the playing stock.
As long as the club services the Amortization responsibilities , the club has a healthy significant investment amount within the total squad pool.
Approximate surplus player values . give or take figure.
Keppa- 20m / Bettinelli- 10m
Willey- 20m / Badishielle - 25m / Chalobah- 25m / Diasasi- 25m /
Chilwell- 20m
Felix- 35m / Sterling- L / Ugo- 25m / Viega- 25m / Chuku- 30m /
Nkunku- 40m / Madueke- 40m / Mudryk- L /
Broja- 10m / Washington- 20m
These values are fairly realistic , they return about 370m , take into consideration some type of loss with Mudryk & Sterling should they be sold before their amortization value becomes a breakeven value.
All the club has to do is see the player contract out to the point where the fee contract becomes saleable at a break even value.
Next of course is the players wage contract, but the majority of these players are on reasonable by comparison annual wages.
In this group Sterling, Felix, Chilwell & Mudryk are the most difficult players to move without loss or being forced to see their contract out.
4sale - or up for loan- value!
posted on 25/4/25
My question is, how long can the owners continue to find loopholes to right off 200m+ a season losses 🤔
The fact teams know Chelsea have to have a mass exodus and an influx of signings each season, to balance things up, doesn't play into Chelseas hands imo.
posted on 25/4/25
The asset stripping will eventually run out of road.
They have put themselves into a corner with very little room to find a way out.
Finally if they donot reestablish the club as a C/L club they will rely upon selling the footballing assets, the players, the best players will be up for sale at some point.
It is a contradiction as the last point is not conducive with building a squad that can maintain C/L status.
posted on 25/4/25
Absolutely annoys the f**k out of me how they have lost revenue this year through no front of shirt sponsor.
Probably 40m lost which they will probably recoup through selling off a couple of academy prospects.
posted on 25/4/25
They are waiting for C/L level sponsorship, you would not want to be hanging
posted on 25/4/25
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 51 minutes ago
They are waiting for C/L level sponsorship, you would not want to be hanging
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes fully understand that they want CL sponsorship (I keep hearing a 60m deal). I imagine there will also be opportunities for decent sponsorship during the World club cup with the exposure it will get.
Anyway can't see why they haven't at least taken a one year deal for this season with a sponsor, in hindsight "Silent Night" or "Dreams" would have been perfect for the dross we are having to watch.
posted on 25/4/25
I think that they will be looking for a long term deal 5- 10 years.
It is mystifying !
posted on 25/4/25
Your problem will be finding buyers.
Few are going to be helpful to you. European football at the level some of these players are at is pretty skint.
There has been a fairly large shift for pricey unwanted players to be loaned, not bought, until their contract runs out, from buying clubs and players. Interested clubs are 1. not wanting to take the risk, 2. not wanting big fees and wages long term on average players and 3. appreciating CFC's poor negotiating position, while players will keep their big contract and run it down with eh hope of a new one of strong wages.
posted on 25/4/25
I think the majority of players are going to be priced between 20- 35m, once the amortization has run 2/3 seasons.
The players such as Nkunku & Madueke represent value at 40m.
Felix, Sterling , Chilwell & Mudryk may all represent a loss if they are not kept until there contracts are run down until the final year.
The majority of players are on lower wages and will be on a low transfer fee after 2/3 seasons.
The player contracts ? i personally think there is a resolution clause in there.
I actually think that they have got the strategy worked out the amortized figure will be in a sense fixed. As long as they maintain that responsibility, the carousel will continue.
As long as they maintain the amount in the player, ie do not loose, by running the contract down to min breakeven level then they keep an overall combined fund rolling over.
It will be swings & round abouts.
This seems to be the only viable strategy that fits what they seem to be doing.
Then the way they will stay the right side of FFP is by selling players, the best players imo inevitably will be sold if thats what it takes.
The down side is it is a real hit or miss strategy if they have a real ambition to re-establish the club as a C/L outfit.
Also this strategy is not going to attract the worlds best managers.
The good news is that as the clubs does now have in excess of 45+ players on the amortized account , it does have a significant fund to play with.
I can see a logic from this perspective, but I dont like it, as I would prefer them to at this point bring some experience to help build a spine .
posted on 25/4/25
What has been the purpose of this massive squad building exercise?
There doesnt seem to be any financial gain from this stock piling, and nor would there be if a bulk of players in a bloated squad are not good enough to regularly make the squad/team or are being loaned out.
If they are being bought to make some PSR profit a few years down the line, surely it would have been better to not incur that amortisation in the first place.
Or is it a case of spreading the net far and wide, some may come good and turn a profit/add to the team while others can be off loaded down down the line in a cost neutral way, while the costs of holding them are mitigated in the meantime?
posted on 25/4/25
Imo, nearer to point 3;
Or is it a case of spreading the net far and wide, some may come good and turn a profit/add to the team while others can be off loaded down down the line in a cost neutral way, while the costs of holding them are mitigated in the meantime?
..................................................................
They have asset stripped the club in the sense that they 50 players all bought through amortization.
Used the cash from sales to run the club and maintain FFP compliance.
These players in general are low risk in terms of fee & wages. With exception of 4/5 all relatively easily loanable or saleable.
They just require to be on the books for ? id say about half of the 5 year amortized contract .
I think that they new that they fckd up so badly after Potter , they have gone for a strategy that at least gives them a significant transfer fund to trade players with the aim of maintaining FFP compliance.
It is still a risk , but after 2/3 seasons the amortization responsibility in each player becomes on average breakeven, possibly profitable and in the odd case a loss.
Meanwhile they must be keeping their fingers crossed they will by chance do enough to get back into C/L contention.
The reality will be when they are forced to sell key players and the knock on effect there after.
Its a race to bottom or to the C/L.
I think its unlikley that they will turn it around successfully , ie, reestablishing CFC as a C/L club.
But they will give it a go for another 2/3 seasons hopefully by then they will so fed up with looking like total idiots that they will seize the first opportunity to sell up.
I just hope we are still in the EPL by then