Chelsea's Crazy Contracts & How They're Avoiding FFP
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มิ.ย. 2024
- Chelsea have spent £475 million on transfers during the 2022-23 season, recruiting the likes of Benoît Badiashile, Noni Madueke, Mykhailo Mudryk, and they show few signs of slowing down.
It is the highest spending season in the history of the Premier League, and by some margin, which has surprised those who expected Chelsea's transfer expenditure to slow down following the departure of Roman Abramovich, replaced by a consortium led by Todd Boehly.
In this video, HITC Sevens takes a look at Chelsea's spending, the enormous contracts handed out to their new signings, how they plan to escape FFP punishments, and whether any of it is actually a good idea. - กีฬา
Trust me, football isn’t the only place where accounting gets creative 😂
look at government spending. this football thing look more sense
@@syarifairlangga4608 Military especially.
It almost seems - and stay with me here, because it's wildly surprising - FFP was not intended to bring fairness but to allow the rich to easily remain on top and keep every club that isn't on top back down where they belong with no real chance of catching up.
Which everyone knows is the real reason, which is why when a big team "breaks" FFP they get a small fine, but when a small team breaks it they get the book thrown at them. It was NEVER about making it a level playing field, it was about making sure the big teams stay big and continue to make FIFA/UEFA lots of money
I mean Chelsea won’t be banned from the UCL because they won’t even qualify lmao
Would have been nice if more people had realized this when it was implemented, instead of acting as cheerleaders for it.
To be fair, FFP was explicitly never intended to promote parity. What would actually bring about parity is having a salary or transfer cap that is the same for every team. That, UEFA will never do lol
@@magicalhikari5859 they won’t even make the Europa conference league
A factor in Chelsea’s player sales revenue was Marina Granovskaia as director. With her departure can Boehly continue high player sale revenue?
I think so just because of how strong the academy is they can keep moving guys out
Todd Boehly is either genius or madness. Only time will tell
There’s a fine line between the two
I would tend to think more likely a genius if you look into his background and the amount of money he is worth along with the owners who are all very good business people .. nothing he has done is illegal it's simply that he is the first to take full advantage of being debt free when he bought the club .
If Chelsea go bankrupt, he is a genius
@@jackmannion143 Except this not boxes, this is people, and footballers who are not playing are very very difficult, especially when no one will buy them from you
His knowledge is Baseball, which is not actually a team game, its team who play individually alone , not together,
@@gratefulkm Baseball is a team sport though. It’s not like boxing or cycling (which arguably again is a team sport)
The EPL is the super league. The fact that Nott Forrest can spend 300 mil when they just got promoted, just goes to show how corrupt the game is. The other big leagues have to either sell 1 player to then buy one, or get put on bullshit FFP rules, but the EPL clubs can literally have 100 mil players on the bench doing nothing, whilst not selling anyone. It is the Super League.
My son it's called " PREMIER LEAGUE " for a reason.
@@SagarDhillon1 it was called the premier league in the 90s as well when things were normal. What is your point
@@SagarDhillon1 Please don't be daft. It's had that name since 1992, when Serie A was levels above it
How is it corrupt? Clubs can spend what they make. The PL makes more than any other league so they spend more. Why would you want billionars to make higher profits? Either the revenue goes into the club or it goes into his pocket.
@@tyrkun1624 Seria a better than EPL? In what planet?
People actually need to learn what FFP is before commenting, it’s not about preventing clubs from spending big!The main objective of the FFP is therefore to fight against the poor financial health of clubs not about their spending . In other words clubs cannot spend more than they earn (the famous “break-even” rule). The main way that clubs make money is • Ticketing revenue
* Sponsorship and advertising revenues
* Revenue from broadcasting rights
* Income from commercial activities (sale of shirts and merchandise, refreshment stands, etc.)
* Solidarity payments and bonuses from UEFA (e.g. bonuses received following the Champions League)
* Income from the sale of player registrations (income from the sale of players)
* Surplus from the disposal of property, plant and equipment (e.g. sale of the training centre).
Yeah, it’s funny how many people don’t understand FFP yet are all too quick to criticize it for the wrong reasons. It’s largely in place to prevent a club from overspending and going into administration.
It does prevent a club from rising quickly but that’s not gatekeeping, that’s again to protect a club from overspending their way into deep financial trouble.
City broke the rules to rise quicker than they should’ve but if you look at Newcastle they’re doing it in a more measured, sustainable, and most importantly, legal manner.
The best part of this video is Chelsea signing Noni Madueke whilst you made it.
Hilarious
Hilarious because he is a fantastic talent? They're starting to turn me around to there methods, strangely. I think it will be a very good next season for them, if not a latter one.
@@littlehammers9032 how does unlimited spending turn you around to their methods?
@@convoluted898because of the talent they’re buying?
@@FirstLast-ur6xt But at what cost? Abramovich made a loss/covered £1.5bn during his 18 years at the club. Doesn't seem a very sustainable business model (even less so out of the football world). Guess making huge losses is the point of late stage capitalism.
@@convoluted898 It's not unlimited spending, if you understanding contract agreements and amortisation. Pull my finger Conrad.
It's smart accounting, and one I suspect other clubs could attempt (looking at you Newcastle) but it's certainly not without it's dangers. The Drinkwater mess could be a tiny drop in the pool compared to if some of these newer deals don't work out for them. As for FFP, it's been a joke for years now and shouldn't really be taken seriously.
Just imagine Chelsea had signed Bogarde on a 10 year deal xD
Bakayoko is still at Chelsea...that's the kind of danger these deals can bring
Nah mate, the Toon are being smart, no Klarna payments from us😂
Other clubs have been doing similar. Juventus and Barcelona amongst them apparantly. Juventus' way of going about it however got them into rather a lot of hot water as they apparantly fiddled the selling fees of players (theres no current evidence that Chelsea have done this thus far, but who knows what investigations might be ongoing or what accounts might show in a few years) to give them more apparant money to spend on new players with the amortisation of assets.
@@bionicgeekgrrl I think Juve's problem is different, their problem wasn't the salaries, it was the pandemic that led to lack of sales, so with the lack of sales, to get an expected result, they had to reduce costs and the way they did it was to pay the salaries even tho on paper they were just paying a portion of it! They were making accounting mistakes on purpose
Believe FIFA are already cracking down on this. Apparently from next season/season after the maximum contract allowed will be 5 years. Think both the Juventus and Chelsea situations will become a thing of the past - it is abusing a grey area in contracts, so it is right it is stopped before it gets out of hand.
From recollection (and this is because I thought 5 years was already the maximum allowed) UEFA/FIFA say it's 5 years*
*unless there's a different limit in that country.
It might be interesting if a player, say Mudrik were to try and extract himself from his contract 5 years from now. But mostly, even FIFA only interferes with the law of sovereign nations when it's hosting a world cup there. The Bosman thing was the opposite, Bosman realised that football law didn't comply with EU law.
@@DJMavis I think they're trying to standardise it for all countries from 2024 onwards. I thought the Mudryk contract was 5 years with a further 2 years added if he meets performance criteria. I might be completely wrong here though. Interesting they're trying to shut this loophole down before it becomes too problematic (like third party ownership of a player)
Only the Amortisation part. Contracts, depending on the country, can still be as long as they like.
Yes, but FIFA doesn't really take action.
Other clubs did the same. Brokelona messi 8 years. Gunners did it too wii fab
£35mill for Drinkwater always makes my eyes water 😢😅
Can you drink the water?
100 million for Stormzy will not be beat
I feel like a lot of people have forgotten that Chelsea was bought at a pittance and had most of its Roman-debt erased, and that may be a big part of why they can afford to spend like they have.
Brilliant video Alfie, as a Chelsea fan it’s nice to see this explored in a measured and detailed way. Keep it up you’re a legend man 🙂
Man City and PSG show how farcical FFP is
You mean the same Manchester City that was facing a 2-year Champions League ban that was only overturned because UEFA is inept and didn't submit the paperwork quickly enough? That Manchester City? The one that's been fined multiple times for FFP violations?
Robot comment
Wtf are you talking about
City have spent a billion in the past 10 years, Chelsea are about to spend half that in 6 months so the bs
City's net spend over the last five years is only 10th highest in the Premier league.
Great video! You mentioned at the end many clubs have looked for financial loopholes and gotten shut down, would be interesting to know about those. A seven best financial scandals or just a video about one would be sick
quality over quantity its no good splashing cash around if you spend it on unsuitable players Chelsea in recent years have wasted an awful lot of money on those type of players a lot who never even played for the club and who they ended up loaning out to other teams
That's what Chelsea are doing by acquiring quality then ship out the deadwood. What Chelsea are doing is buying the best young prospects that can fit a prosession-based style (Graham potter) right now so they can grow together. Once the squad is settled with deadwood replaced with quality young prospects the owners are going to start a multi club model which they want to use it like the Red bull group by one of the clubs the acquire buy an upcoming youngster to develop so Chelsea can buy them for a cut price meaning us spending like this won't last forever also the owners are going to rebuild Stamford bridge and try to increase the revenue to 1 billion. Don't listen to the media too much because it's going to make you think like how your comment was. One-dimensional. Do your research before critiquing something you have no knowledge of 👍. Chelsea are in the right hands with owners who are nothing like the glazers there is a reason why Roman picked this consortium over 55 other billionaires, if you don't believe do your research on the dorgers
@@photogps3540 that’s assuming Potter stays. These plans are all well and good but, we don’t have a franchise system. Whilst buying the best young talent and getting rid of the deadwood could help in the future at this current moment in time the European system is results results results. If we don’t sort ourselves out we could be facing relegation battles
Didnt that what abrahamovich did over those 20 or so years? Everyonce in awhile it will hit
@@duyanhng8430 he was successful though. This new spending spree seems risky and looks like Boehly doesn’t really understand the different systems in European and American sports
We are judging Chelsea base off the new ownership. Not bas ownership
These types of long-term contracts are quite common in the various sport leagues in the USA. It's not surprising that Boehly is using them at Chelsea. UEFA might not be happy with the contracts, but at this point, there is nothing illegal or underhanded about them. Whether or not it is a good idea financially to lock yourself into a very long contract, as the one paying the bills, is another matter.
I am here after Chelsea broke English transfer record after signing Enzo 🤯
A video on the crisis at Everton would be great, it looks bad from the outside but it's worse than most realise
Boo hoo
The difference between US sport leagues and the Premier League is that the owners don't write the rules for the sport in Europe. In other words, UEFA can change the rules in a way that the US sports never would. This style of contracts is common in baseball (MLB) "salary cap" as highlighted by the Bonilla case:
Bonilla and his agent offered the Mets a deal: Bonilla would defer payment for a decade, and the Mets would pay him an annual paycheck of $1.19 million starting in 2011 and ending in 2035,
You forgot Winston Bogarde, 9 appearances for Chelsea in 4 seasons. He made 0 appearances in the last 3 seasons.
ah you've watched Darren Bent on Talksport and you are now enlightened! Under the advise no less of Melchiot, who had three good seasons with us.
You probably weren’t born when that happened. Probably heard a crappy pundit mention it on their crappy podcast.
The National Hockey League had a problem with long-term contracts as a way to "circumvent" their salary cap. Teams were giving large, long-term contracts that were front-loaded. These contracts would also take the player to at or past 40 years of age. The final few years of the contract would be a fraction of the yearly value (cap hit) such that if the player retired or was bought out, it would cost the team little. Goalie Roberto Luongo had a contract like this. The NHL changed their rules, and back-diving contracts now have cap penalties for the team that signed the player to the contract.
Uefa announced today (or at least the day this video came out) that armotisation will now be capped at five years going forward to limit such a loophole. Seems like the way it appears is causing trouble though, given creative use of amortisation caused trouble at Derby, if in a different way
Great Informative vid as always 🗣️
For those who aren’t in the know, FFP was designed to 1) stop clubs from going out of business 2) maintain the status quo 3) a corollary to 2, to keep the Champions League as attractive as possible.
Given the PL & UEFA decided to flood European football with obscene finances and incentives to spend crazily, them applying FFP is a bit like them buying a television, throwing a brick through it and complaining about the television being broken.
I was only half watching this (whilst listening intently) because I was away from the fridge, but I hope you dropped an Everton photo or two in the bits where you discussed COVID as an excuse for failing FFP
Indeed, only time will reveal the future of Todd Boehly's Chelse. Great video as always.....please what app do you use to edit your videos like this in picture format??
Amortization is fine but there should be rules such as in the NHL like the "Roberto Luongo Rule" Basically penalizing lost value on contracts which were aimed at subverting the rules. Granted in the NHL it was undermining the salary cap rules (by signing a 12 year front loaded pay deal where the player is not reasonably expected to finish the contract) but the principle can be applied to a $100,000,000 contract over 8 years, if player is being sold for $10 million after 4 years there would be a "cost allowance penalty" (not fine) of 37.5 million spread over the voided seasons as that would be the "loss" on the contract value.
I knew it that you would have made the best video on this topic but I couldn't find your channel at first because there is another one called HITC Football which has similar video but with far less info and details.
Are these 2 channels somehow related???
PS: I already subscribed to this one and not to the other one so the confusion will be no more :D
Another great video. Here's a possible suggestion (if you haven't already done it): Seven best players that only played for one club.
You have to imagine that this period from boehly taking over until next summers window is complete one off though. They are pretty much rebuilding a team from the ground up that has an age profile meaning they'll have a solid first 11 for years to come that will in all likely hood appreciate in value. After next summer I imagine it will become the odd signing here and there as required. Its a gamble of short term pain for long term gain and I'm convinced it will work out
Everyone is complaining that we've found "loop holes" in these rules, But when you think of loop holes to cheat a system, it's usually some big brain manipulation to weasel out of something that could have legal repercussions.
The fact is, there was never a contract length rule to begin with. It's not Chelsea's fault they didn't think this over enough.
A loophole is lietraly compliance with the rules. And this isn't a loophole because everyone does the same thing. Cfc have just added a couple years to the contracts. I don't see a problem. Let them spend what they like. When those players flop they'll be stuck with them for 8 years.
The thing with them making so much on sales is, the lady that organised all those sales (Maria can’t remember her last name), is gone now so I don’t know how well they’ll do on selling players
Marina Granovskaia
Love Alfie's explanation of the depreciation of non-current assets
@9:08 - Bold stance.
Great analysis, just less of the unrelenting sarcasm - 8/10
I really like this guy. He paints without any varnish 👍
I’m from Chicago but I understood the Dodgy David Cameron reference!
Didn't Derby County use the same amortisation method and get punished for it?
Efl have more strict rules than the premier league
17:28 amazing image - I wonder though, wasn't the point of that signing also in part to add more English players to the club?
Next vid about frankfurt would be cool
I'm a Chelsea girl, and have been since before Abramovich and before the incredible spending we now see in football. Personally, as much as we've won everything (and I did enjoy those times, of course), I still prefer the days before x
That makes perfect sense, i think. Regards from 🇸🇯
Sounds like you were supposed to live in a country where fans still own their clubs
@@EisernRob I'm not upset at Abramovich (he saved the club), I'm upset that that needed to happen in the first place really. I'd like to see a level playing field. Of course, I'm an idealist. But so what? I'll always be an idealist! 🙂 x
@@QueerChica chelsea relied on a corrupt Russian Oligarch to “save” them, whereas Arsenal, relied on a footballing GENIUS in Arsene Wenger. Chelsea are an absolutely soulless club. Whatever way you look at it, Chelsea are the reason Neymar cost a ridiculous £222M. Arsenal have had soul and class since the days of Herbert Chapman. Soulless corrupt football club.
@@muzza2096 let me guess. You actually know nothing about football before the 2000s, and can merely quote Herbert Chapman's name? We were a well-established club before Roman Abramovich, which should be obvious.
This tired old noveau riche argument doesn't tell the whole story. Astonishingly, non-football fans and the clueless still trot this out. My riposte is almost default, and is as follows:
Chelsea were becoming a major force already thanks to the Hoddle revolution, which was followed by Gullit, Vialli, and then Ramieri.
We qualified for Europe every year for eight years prior to being bought. We had won the 1997 League Cup and FA Cup; Cup Winners' Cup in '98, finished 3rd in '99 (just four points behind treble winners Man United), won the FA Cup again in 2000; reached the Champions Leaugue quarter-finals in 99/00 (where we beat Barca 3-1 at the Bridge in the first leg. In the first groups, we hammered UEFA Cup winner Galatasaray and drew 1-1 with the mighty AC Milan in the San Siro); reached another FA Cup final in 02; qualified for the Champions' League again in 02/03 (we were bought that summer).
I hasten to add the FA Cup finals were at a time when every team still wanted to win the thing as well.
Now, yes, money improved things (we weren't the first to spend it either, another thing that gets overlooked...).
Abramovich's first season as owner saw reckless spending that ensured we fell short (again, money helps but doesn't automatically get results). We did reach the semis in the Champions' League, only to crash out to Monaco.
We were off the pace in the league that year (but I would concede second-place was still an achievement).
Yes, the money made us BETTER. But the way every bangs on about it without an iota of insight is borne of bitterness.
Secondly, don't speak as if Arsenal -- a club that has spent money too in the past -- are Charlton or Leyton Orient. It's worth remembering that they hoover up talent. In any case, bitter missives written by bitter fans like yours are nothing new, and lack any insight. Smacks of jealousy. I'm not sure how tangible this soul nonsense you're talking about really is, or whether it's misty-eyed shit... but have a bitter on me! 😘🤣
Why does ffp even exist if it can be exploited that easily?
What a joke
a billy joel photo in a hitc sevens video, alfie I love you
Video idea:
Ranking all formations in associtaion football from worst to best.
We really should have seen a dude that works around a stricter Salary cap in the US for years doing this tbh
Good morning Alfie.
FFP is a toothless tiger, nothing will stop the ‘English’ Plastic League from destroying the transfer market and ruining football.
I don't know much about finances in football. But in conventional businesses, amortisation goes hand-in-hand with depreciation accounting. As in, the asset loses value over time and shows up as a loss, albeit gradual one, over its lifecycle. If this isn't the case with football, then that is a pretty large loophole. When a player wind down his contract towards the final year, then he will no doubt be commanding less in terms of transfer fees. Surely that has to be factored in when evaluating a club otherwise everyone is just overpadding their books lol.
How does amortization work when a player is sold? Like, if a player is bought for 10m and 5 years, they claim 2m per year expenditure, what happens if they are sold after 2 years? Do they just claim it as a lump sum of 6m, or is it subtracted from the player sale?
The 'T'ransfer fee and the 'C'ontract value are totalled together and divided over the length in 'Y'ears of the contract that is the 'A'mortization amount per year in a straight line method. (T+C)/Y=A
If a player is sold whatever has not been amortized goes to a disposal account and the proceeds of the sale go to the other side of the disposal account. If the transfer fee is more than the remainder of the amortization it goes to the profit and loss account as a profit. If it is less then it goes into the profit and loss account as a loss.
Also the value of the contract is an asset on the balance sheet of the club until the contract ends or the player is sold to another club.
They’re not avoiding FFP though they’re following the rules
Financial fair play
There's nothin fair about Chelsea
@@marco16202 is that why they’re in the bottom half of the table
Also which people might not also be aware of, the terms of sale included a 1bn club investment fund that has been recorded on the books
That first part gave me an aneurysm while reading
Seems the powers that be have seen your video and decided the rules will change. Channel of the people indeed!
The concept of stretching amortization is not that far fetched. Business buy property, plant & equipment (PP&E) all the time and amortize these assets over different lives depending on their use. A footballer is an asset to a club, and if the club believes the usefulness of the asset is 5,6,7, or 8 years, it is not unreasonable to amortize the cost of said asset for that period of time.
It’s kinda like klarna. Good if you’ve got 1 or 2 but when your owning more debt than you can afford, it can lead to financial disaster
According to Tifo Italy has a maximum of 5-year contracts. Any chance of similar regulations being enacted in the PL or throughout UEFA?
Yes UEFA has already updated the rules to place the limit at 5 years
I hope they don’t impose that here. I want loads of terrible players on seven-year contract at Chelsea.
@@Beansontoast93911Who's terrible? Madueke, Mudryk, Felix, badiashile, Andrey santos and Nkunku are all on form and fantastic talents. You can only insult Chelsea for the reminder of the season, while it lasts.
@@islamiconasheed well one of them players got sent off on his debut for your crappy little club. And I’m just trying to remember what the result was. Let me know if you remember and also if you could let me know your league position because that also might help me knowing how good your players forms are. And also, I’m very confident that you are a local supporter because I can imagine that you grew up in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
@@Beansontoast93911you sound bitter
What happens to Christian Pulisic after all of Chelsea's signings?
The amounts of money being spent by football clubs is pretty obscene, the amount spent in the Premier League 2022/3 would just about fund the entire NHS for 2 months. I hope for the sake of the fans of the likes of Chelsea and Newcastle that it all doesn't come crashing down around them. Been there with my home town club and it's not fun, being in the position of "will our next game be the last the club ever plays"
This isn’t really a wild loophole that Chelsea are exploiting to be honest. American sports teams that play in leagues which have salary caps like the NBA or NHL, have stayed under their league’s salary cap limit by stretching player’s salaries over years or by backloading/frontloading salary payments. I think this just further proves how FFP really hasn’t prevented or regulated the things that it was created to do in the first place…
This isn’t a problem in us sports tho since everyone is dealing with the exact same size pool of money you either accept more of a cap hit now or later.
OMG everyone is obsessed with Chelsea.. Love it lol.
Surely an upper cap on fees spent would be fairer than potentially changing this as chelsea are abusing something smaller clubs use to spread fees to help with sensible contracts as players don't sign 8 year deals for smaller fees
Upper cap just means clubs cant set vallue of their assets...would just make it cheaper for bigger clubs
@@tomasmateus17 not on an ffp basis as players won't sign long deals if they won't be sold anyway as a rule 200 million would more then cover any teams outlay and beyond that nothing is sustainable.
@@simplesimonhadapie that sounds good on paper but isnt really true...that would criple the portuguese teams so hard...big clubs would keep the financial advantage on salary it would just make it easier for them to sign (enzo fernandes is a good example)
Buying players is a great hedge against inflation imo
Well they’re changing the rules so this won’t be allowed in future but yes they’re well within ffp rules
Enzo Fernadez just entered the chat
one question alfie. you always rate Romario super high, but what's your thoughts on Bebeto? He is not even in your top 100 all time footballers, despite Romario in 16 or so, and Bebeto was almost as good as Romario and vital in Brazil's 1994 World Cup triumph.
Career wise its not close
@@jeffrejr1 why? He did more in La Liga than Romarrio, the best league both of them played in. And he had 5 g+a in the 1994 World Cup. His overall contribution was also better than Romario's. It's very close between them.
@@footballchannel8430 your European league bias is nonsense.
@@jeffrejr1 i doubt that the brazilian league was as good in the late 80s and especially 90s than La Liga
@@footballchannel8430 Brazilian league they actually have defenders. I remember vasco dagama playing united with Romario upfront how did that go?
FFP is a toothless joke. And on deadline day today, Chelsea again circumvented FFP by signing Enzo for 106m pounds.
Wait, why did chelsea EXTEND Rahman’s contract in 2021 though???
With 7 year contracts if players fail they are more expensive to get rid of.
Love how they are called “loopholes” . Is, what they have done “within” the rules ?
They´ll be making a lot of money in the Summer, Havertz, Pulisic, Ziyech, Mendy, among other will be making Chelsea lots of money, plus players like Jorginho, Azpi, Kante or Auba will be leaving as well, wich is good for the wage budget.
Hey Alfie.. How would you react if Hull City is brought by a Rich Middle East owner with a plan to get to premier league and get to European football every season...🤔
probably wouldn't like it, he has mentioned before that he wouldn't know how he would feel, of course it isn't just a rich Middle Eastern businessman that he has troubles with owning the club, it is the countries. You could watch his video on Newcastle and Saudi Arabia for that. With Brentford, for instance, I wouldn't like it even if we won the Premier League, wouldn't feel genuine. I'm more than happy with the least rich owner of all of the first two divisions of English football.
he would hate it
HITC Sevens does funny lists and also investigative journalism about corruption in football
Clearly they have forgotten about the 2yr ban just a few years back
It really is funny how England collectively went, "yup, the only club that will be punished will be Everton."
Top 7 longest contracts
Best German players in the premier league of all time. (Day 449)
I will not give up until the video is made or Alfie himself tells me to stop. Everyone else telling me that will be ignored.
If you don't believe my number, just go back to the previous videos. I'm at the bottom most of the time, but I'm there.
Shkodran Mustafi
In no particular order:
Jens Lehmann
Mesut Ozil
Per Mertesacker
Michael Ballack
Leroy Sane
Jurgen Klinsmann
Dietmar Hamann
Honorable mention: Ilkay Gundogan
That’s who I would pick but I’d also love a video to see what Alfie’s opinion would be.
Farming the out on loan like it’s career mode😂
Be good video in a couple years to see how the Chelsea players compared to man City record breaking transfer window
A bunch of supercars on Saudi plates going through Sloane Street but Roman gets done, a guy who cared a lot about Chelsea quite clearly because if he didn't - he wouldn't have sold it. He sold it to do Chelsea a favour.
I wonder how can Chelsea fare now. When their infamous previous owner (ousted because of connection to Putin), Chelsea had always found the way to triumph. But now they are struggling.
Suggestion : Most Controversial EPL Referees WAHAHAHAHAH!
Easy way to fix it. Ffp to not allow amortisation or cap it. They won't as ffp is just uefa looking like they add doing something when in reality it does nothing
I see no downside. If Mudryk doesn’t perform he is still on low enough wages to shift to a lesser club. And if he gets injured the club has a huge insurance contract on him that will pay out. There is really no downside to long term contracts on lowish wages
Revise FFP to just be a max amount all teams in Europe can spend no matter their revenue.
So that any rich wack job can buy a small club and spend money on transfers to increase commercial revenue & their competitiveness to be able to close the gap with the "big clubs"
American sports (especially baseball) have been handing out wild and crazy long contracts (10 years+ in some instances) for a while now, so it’s not surprising that an American would try the same tricks
How does amortization work for Chelsea when it’s what has caused Derby County’s demise?
Alfie… it’s time to make the video… What On Earth Is Going On At Everton???!
Let's go Chelsea!
If the transfer money out is to be amortised, so should the transfer money IN.
Missed a trick with 'romans reign'.. enter Roman reigns reference.
I get what they doing but Chelsea still ruining football all over again with these fees. Long term Contracts makes sense I think this will change football transfer world with others doing the same to avoid FFP.
And granted 20% profit for their owners and stripped out of the players with salary cap which is illegal under EU Rules. One big thing, no club comes close to our bottom team so we will have all the good players as we make all the money :)
Now uefa want to cap contract lengths at 5years
Please take a look at Clearlake's connections to Saudi Arabia.
you'll get that mortgage one day Alf.
It seems to me as if Boehly is importing the American way of 'buying a whole new team' each season, as is the case with Baseball. Where all players are up for grabs for all the baseball clubs in between seasons there.
In this respect he's going even further than Abramovich did, when he was owner - a huge summer spending spree every three or four years or so. But no desire to radically change the team every summer.
It doesn't seem like the best thing for Chelsea FC, and I certainly don't see his (Boehly's) methods or model as being the future for Premier League football.
It sounds like a recipe for disaster. No continuity with the evolving of a team over the course of several seasons. Keeping track of all the new players will be exhausting after a while, and likely see season ticket sales plummet.
Soon Chelsea fans won't even know who plays for them, and this will be entirely Boehly's fault.
This Todd fella could have saved a heap of cash....if he'd just bought Brighton!
Can you make a video on how should peak Messi and Ronaldo could have played together if it was possible.
Also, who should have suited for 3rd attacking option.
Neymar, Mbappe or Suarez.
Suarez, no doubt. Far more industrious than either Mbappe or Neymar
@@gurururuwarararara8164 ronaldo is the main goalscorer wherever he goes, he wouldn't appreciate sharing that role with Suarez
When will the Dele Alli video be ready?
Waiting on a team to sign Alfie to their front office
Spend low for a couple of years then yes you can spend a lot once every 3 seasons