'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
Is it better though?
Now other clubs can't do what Chelsea have done because they've taken the Michael with it, so they've benefitted (short term anyway) where others now cannot, just like with FFP in the first place.
comment by garrybuild (U1148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably a bit in the other parties. But the Tory corruption and sleaze is off the scale. Every week a new Tory sleaze ball is exposed.
I still think this will blow up on Chelsea - they are lumbered with those players for 3 quarters of a decade - what if they don’t work out? Sure they can loan them but the wages they are on would mean Chelsea would likely have to subsidise that.
I’ve not been Boehled over with their new ownership
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by garrybuild (U1148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably a bit in the other parties. But the Tory corruption and sleaze is off the scale. Every week a new Tory sleaze ball is exposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's so commonplace with this corrupt Tory party it's hard to keep up
They've really dropped the standards beyond anything that could've been imagined even 10-15 years ago, it's crazy
No other political party is in the same stratosphere at the moment
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by garrybuild (U1148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably a bit in the other parties. But the Tory corruption and sleaze is off the scale. Every week a new Tory sleaze ball is exposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's so commonplace with this corrupt Tory party it's hard to keep up
They've really dropped the standards beyond anything that could've been imagined even 10-15 years ago, it's crazy
No other political party is in the same stratosphere at the moment
----------------------------------------------------------------------I think whoever is in power nowadays will be under so much scrutiny we will find they are all the same, its just the other parties are not in positions of power at the moment, once they are the media will leave no stone unturned until they find something
Nothing wrong with long contracts. You should be able to sign players for 5, 6, 7 or more years but the issue is the payment terms. There should be a cap on how staggered those payments are. They should really be paid up to a maximum of 3 years so that teams can't circumvent FFP allowances. I'm pretty sure their checks take place over a 3 year period so that should really be the maximum allowance for payment plans.
Long term it doesn't make much difference because all this means is that Chelsea's budget is reduced for future windows. Also, I wouldn't worry about their spending. Like all US ownership models, they splurge at the beginning and then sit tight and wait for profits. This won't continue. It can't continue. They're still in it for the profits rather than sport washing so the investment will slow down eventually.
What struck me the other day was that looking at City's rise, they made the UEFA Cup off teh back of fair play qualification and were in a group with PSG, PSG coming 3rd in that group behind City & Twente.
Now look at both City and PSG...just ridiculous fast-tracked rise to glory, built on unearned money and the endlessly deep pockets of Nations.
Football success has always ebbed and flowed. In the UK Liverpool and Utd are the big ones but themselves went through decades of decline before rising again.
While I am all for more competition and the ability for clubs to be able to step up and challenge the top teams, this aspiration is crushed where the resources of some are beyond limitation and in some cases regulation.
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might ignore this one
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might ignore this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't gnored it. The post is completely irrelevant to the article.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 22 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with long contracts. You should be able to sign players for 5, 6, 7 or more years but the issue is the payment terms. There should be a cap on how staggered those payments are. They should really be paid up to a maximum of 3 years so that teams can't circumvent FFP allowances. I'm pretty sure their checks take place over a 3 year period so that should really be the maximum allowance for payment plans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this idea.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 minutes ago
What struck me the other day was that looking at City's rise, they made the UEFA Cup off teh back of fair play qualification and were in a group with PSG, PSG coming 3rd in that group behind City & Twente.
Now look at both City and PSG...just ridiculous fast-tracked rise to glory, built on unearned money and the endlessly deep pockets of Nations.
Football success has always ebbed and flowed. In the UK Liverpool and Utd are the big ones but themselves went through decades of decline before rising again.
While I am all for more competition and the ability for clubs to be able to step up and challenge the top teams, this aspiration is crushed where the resources of some are beyond limitation and in some cases regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True but then without it the monopoly remains with those exclusive few. Most of the resistance to Newcastle came from the current top six because they have the most to lose, Spurs in particular, from Newcastle's gain. As things currently stand, there is no way really of dining with the elite on a regular basis without financial doping of some sort. You have a big monster in United who's history of dominance sees them generate financial numbers that's hard to compete with, then there's Chelsea, City and now Newcastle fast-tracked, and then Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs having glimpses of success that aren't sustainable because the funds aren't there to really compete year after year.
FFP as a concept is something largely constructed by the elite to keep the status quo. It doesn't level the playing field, it stops smaller clubs from dreaming.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 minutes ago
What struck me the other day was that looking at City's rise, they made the UEFA Cup off teh back of fair play qualification and were in a group with PSG, PSG coming 3rd in that group behind City & Twente.
Now look at both City and PSG...just ridiculous fast-tracked rise to glory, built on unearned money and the endlessly deep pockets of Nations.
Football success has always ebbed and flowed. In the UK Liverpool and Utd are the big ones but themselves went through decades of decline before rising again.
While I am all for more competition and the ability for clubs to be able to step up and challenge the top teams, this aspiration is crushed where the resources of some are beyond limitation and in some cases regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True but then without it the monopoly remains with those exclusive few. Most of the resistance to Newcastle came from the current top six because they have the most to lose, Spurs in particular, from Newcastle's gain. As things currently stand, there is no way really of dining with the elite on a regular basis without financial doping of some sort. You have a big monster in United who's history of dominance sees them generate financial numbers that's hard to compete with, then there's Chelsea, City and now Newcastle fast-tracked, and then Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs having glimpses of success that aren't sustainable because the funds aren't there to really compete year after year.
FFP as a concept is something largely constructed by the elite to keep the status quo. It doesn't level the playing field, it stops smaller clubs from dreaming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea in reality have no advantage over Spurs, now the sugar daddy has done a runner. That they are now trying to bend the rules over contracts, shows how desperate they are becoming.
If UEFA wanna change the rules to FFP cos a bunch of clubs have whined about how we've done business that's their prerogative, but tell me exactly how we've gained an unfair advantage here? We've exposed a loophole & are actually taking a gamble by giving players these very long contracts, not done anything illegal.
If anything it sounds like your problem is with UEFA for FFP being a joke, which everyone knew anyway
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 24 minutes ago
If UEFA wanna change the rules to FFP cos a bunch of clubs have whined about how we've done business that's their prerogative, but tell me exactly how we've gained an unfair advantage here? We've exposed a loophole & are actually taking a gamble by giving players these very long contracts, not done anything illegal.
If anything it sounds like your problem is with UEFA for FFP being a joke, which everyone knew anyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s probably because Chelsea are playing this system in a way that few clubs in football can, or are willing to do given the capital needed to sink into the club.
It’s a fair point about it backfiring if the signings end up crap, which doesn’t seem that unlikely looking at them and Chelsea’s recent history in the transfer market.
But clubs won’t care about that, it’s a threat to their own competitiveness on and off the pitch.
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the amortisation and not the length of contract that is being regulated right?
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the amortisation and not the length of contract that is being regulated right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how you can do one without the other.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might ignore this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't gnored it. The post is completely irrelevant to the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re calling other clubs corrupt, whilst having a corrupt director sat at the top table of your club.
It’s not hard to see the link if you engage your brain even a little bit
Harsh reality is Liverpool or Spurs could easily do what Chelsea have. Although the max time you can spread it over is 5 years, with teams being able to spend around 70% on wages/ fees (which even then will take a few years til it's that amount) it's easily doable with their revenues. Our owners just won't stump up the cash. Chelsea have prob had a bigger outlay in 12 months than Klopps whole reign it's hard not to be jealous of their intent.
I don't think the rules are being changed because of Chelsea directly, it's more they don't want other clubs to copy the model when their revenues may not be as consistent or as high. Not every club has a billionaire backing them.
When loads were laughing at Chelseas plight when Roman got kicked out I said, they will come back and spend more than ever before. Debt free and the sale said the new owner had to spend X amount on transfers and no dividends for something like 10 years. Seemed inevitable really but I must confess I didn't quite expect so many deals. They are going to have a squad of about 40 players 😂
It's mad to think this guy also has a rep of just bombing out flops too at a loss so I wouldn't want to be lukaku!
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the amortisation and not the length of contract that is being regulated right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. I've heard clubs can still have the option after 5 years to extend deals so it'll just be for FFP purposes it'll be 5.
Seen people say that's the reason Chelsea won't sign Enzo now as Benfica want the whole fee upfront but that wouldn't stop Chelsea from using amortisation to spread the fee. If anything I think the changes to amortisation may just mean Chelsea spend even more now 😂
Sign in if you want to comment
Better late than never
Page 1 of 3
posted on 25/1/23
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
posted on 25/1/23
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
posted on 25/1/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
posted on 25/1/23
Is it better though?
Now other clubs can't do what Chelsea have done because they've taken the Michael with it, so they've benefitted (short term anyway) where others now cannot, just like with FFP in the first place.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by garrybuild (U1148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably a bit in the other parties. But the Tory corruption and sleaze is off the scale. Every week a new Tory sleaze ball is exposed.
posted on 25/1/23
I still think this will blow up on Chelsea - they are lumbered with those players for 3 quarters of a decade - what if they don’t work out? Sure they can loan them but the wages they are on would mean Chelsea would likely have to subsidise that.
I’ve not been Boehled over with their new ownership
posted on 25/1/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by garrybuild (U1148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably a bit in the other parties. But the Tory corruption and sleaze is off the scale. Every week a new Tory sleaze ball is exposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's so commonplace with this corrupt Tory party it's hard to keep up
They've really dropped the standards beyond anything that could've been imagined even 10-15 years ago, it's crazy
No other political party is in the same stratosphere at the moment
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by garrybuild (U1148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 5 minutes ago
'Time to clean up the Prem. No more shady deals to benefit the few over the many.'
Good luck with that, there's nearly as much chance of cleaning-up Westminster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to start somewhere.
Westminister will be cleaned up when the Tories get a drubbing at the polls.
----------------------------------------you really think there is no sleaze in the other political parties in this country Sandy?, they are all in it to feather their own nest one way or another------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably a bit in the other parties. But the Tory corruption and sleaze is off the scale. Every week a new Tory sleaze ball is exposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's so commonplace with this corrupt Tory party it's hard to keep up
They've really dropped the standards beyond anything that could've been imagined even 10-15 years ago, it's crazy
No other political party is in the same stratosphere at the moment
----------------------------------------------------------------------I think whoever is in power nowadays will be under so much scrutiny we will find they are all the same, its just the other parties are not in positions of power at the moment, once they are the media will leave no stone unturned until they find something
posted on 25/1/23
Nothing wrong with long contracts. You should be able to sign players for 5, 6, 7 or more years but the issue is the payment terms. There should be a cap on how staggered those payments are. They should really be paid up to a maximum of 3 years so that teams can't circumvent FFP allowances. I'm pretty sure their checks take place over a 3 year period so that should really be the maximum allowance for payment plans.
Long term it doesn't make much difference because all this means is that Chelsea's budget is reduced for future windows. Also, I wouldn't worry about their spending. Like all US ownership models, they splurge at the beginning and then sit tight and wait for profits. This won't continue. It can't continue. They're still in it for the profits rather than sport washing so the investment will slow down eventually.
posted on 25/1/23
What struck me the other day was that looking at City's rise, they made the UEFA Cup off teh back of fair play qualification and were in a group with PSG, PSG coming 3rd in that group behind City & Twente.
Now look at both City and PSG...just ridiculous fast-tracked rise to glory, built on unearned money and the endlessly deep pockets of Nations.
Football success has always ebbed and flowed. In the UK Liverpool and Utd are the big ones but themselves went through decades of decline before rising again.
While I am all for more competition and the ability for clubs to be able to step up and challenge the top teams, this aspiration is crushed where the resources of some are beyond limitation and in some cases regulation.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might ignore this one
posted on 25/1/23
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might ignore this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't gnored it. The post is completely irrelevant to the article.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 22 minutes ago
Nothing wrong with long contracts. You should be able to sign players for 5, 6, 7 or more years but the issue is the payment terms. There should be a cap on how staggered those payments are. They should really be paid up to a maximum of 3 years so that teams can't circumvent FFP allowances. I'm pretty sure their checks take place over a 3 year period so that should really be the maximum allowance for payment plans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this idea.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 minutes ago
What struck me the other day was that looking at City's rise, they made the UEFA Cup off teh back of fair play qualification and were in a group with PSG, PSG coming 3rd in that group behind City & Twente.
Now look at both City and PSG...just ridiculous fast-tracked rise to glory, built on unearned money and the endlessly deep pockets of Nations.
Football success has always ebbed and flowed. In the UK Liverpool and Utd are the big ones but themselves went through decades of decline before rising again.
While I am all for more competition and the ability for clubs to be able to step up and challenge the top teams, this aspiration is crushed where the resources of some are beyond limitation and in some cases regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True but then without it the monopoly remains with those exclusive few. Most of the resistance to Newcastle came from the current top six because they have the most to lose, Spurs in particular, from Newcastle's gain. As things currently stand, there is no way really of dining with the elite on a regular basis without financial doping of some sort. You have a big monster in United who's history of dominance sees them generate financial numbers that's hard to compete with, then there's Chelsea, City and now Newcastle fast-tracked, and then Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs having glimpses of success that aren't sustainable because the funds aren't there to really compete year after year.
FFP as a concept is something largely constructed by the elite to keep the status quo. It doesn't level the playing field, it stops smaller clubs from dreaming.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 minutes ago
What struck me the other day was that looking at City's rise, they made the UEFA Cup off teh back of fair play qualification and were in a group with PSG, PSG coming 3rd in that group behind City & Twente.
Now look at both City and PSG...just ridiculous fast-tracked rise to glory, built on unearned money and the endlessly deep pockets of Nations.
Football success has always ebbed and flowed. In the UK Liverpool and Utd are the big ones but themselves went through decades of decline before rising again.
While I am all for more competition and the ability for clubs to be able to step up and challenge the top teams, this aspiration is crushed where the resources of some are beyond limitation and in some cases regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True but then without it the monopoly remains with those exclusive few. Most of the resistance to Newcastle came from the current top six because they have the most to lose, Spurs in particular, from Newcastle's gain. As things currently stand, there is no way really of dining with the elite on a regular basis without financial doping of some sort. You have a big monster in United who's history of dominance sees them generate financial numbers that's hard to compete with, then there's Chelsea, City and now Newcastle fast-tracked, and then Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs having glimpses of success that aren't sustainable because the funds aren't there to really compete year after year.
FFP as a concept is something largely constructed by the elite to keep the status quo. It doesn't level the playing field, it stops smaller clubs from dreaming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea in reality have no advantage over Spurs, now the sugar daddy has done a runner. That they are now trying to bend the rules over contracts, shows how desperate they are becoming.
posted on 25/1/23
If UEFA wanna change the rules to FFP cos a bunch of clubs have whined about how we've done business that's their prerogative, but tell me exactly how we've gained an unfair advantage here? We've exposed a loophole & are actually taking a gamble by giving players these very long contracts, not done anything illegal.
If anything it sounds like your problem is with UEFA for FFP being a joke, which everyone knew anyway
posted on 25/1/23
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 24 minutes ago
If UEFA wanna change the rules to FFP cos a bunch of clubs have whined about how we've done business that's their prerogative, but tell me exactly how we've gained an unfair advantage here? We've exposed a loophole & are actually taking a gamble by giving players these very long contracts, not done anything illegal.
If anything it sounds like your problem is with UEFA for FFP being a joke, which everyone knew anyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s probably because Chelsea are playing this system in a way that few clubs in football can, or are willing to do given the capital needed to sink into the club.
It’s a fair point about it backfiring if the signings end up crap, which doesn’t seem that unlikely looking at them and Chelsea’s recent history in the transfer market.
But clubs won’t care about that, it’s a threat to their own competitiveness on and off the pitch.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the amortisation and not the length of contract that is being regulated right?
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the amortisation and not the length of contract that is being regulated right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how you can do one without the other.
posted on 25/1/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Don’t Spurs currently have a corrupt director in post?
Get off your high horse OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might ignore this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't gnored it. The post is completely irrelevant to the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re calling other clubs corrupt, whilst having a corrupt director sat at the top table of your club.
It’s not hard to see the link if you engage your brain even a little bit
posted on 25/1/23
Harsh reality is Liverpool or Spurs could easily do what Chelsea have. Although the max time you can spread it over is 5 years, with teams being able to spend around 70% on wages/ fees (which even then will take a few years til it's that amount) it's easily doable with their revenues. Our owners just won't stump up the cash. Chelsea have prob had a bigger outlay in 12 months than Klopps whole reign it's hard not to be jealous of their intent.
I don't think the rules are being changed because of Chelsea directly, it's more they don't want other clubs to copy the model when their revenues may not be as consistent or as high. Not every club has a billionaire backing them.
When loads were laughing at Chelseas plight when Roman got kicked out I said, they will come back and spend more than ever before. Debt free and the sale said the new owner had to spend X amount on transfers and no dividends for something like 10 years. Seemed inevitable really but I must confess I didn't quite expect so many deals. They are going to have a squad of about 40 players 😂
It's mad to think this guy also has a rep of just bombing out flops too at a loss so I wouldn't want to be lukaku!
posted on 25/1/23
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf---A Scottish world champion and Messi the goat. (U11551)
posted 23 minutes ago
isn't it actually only a club has to spread the payments over five years maximum and not only a five year maximum contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the amortisation and not the length of contract that is being regulated right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. I've heard clubs can still have the option after 5 years to extend deals so it'll just be for FFP purposes it'll be 5.
Seen people say that's the reason Chelsea won't sign Enzo now as Benfica want the whole fee upfront but that wouldn't stop Chelsea from using amortisation to spread the fee. If anything I think the changes to amortisation may just mean Chelsea spend even more now 😂
Page 1 of 3