Simon Jordan brilliantly explains why Chelsea have ZERO issues with FFP! 💰👍 | talkSPORT

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 1.2K

  • @lucasmoreno5330
    @lucasmoreno5330 ปีที่แล้ว +682

    This is where Simon adds genuine value to the discussion. I much prefer his technical ownership knowledge over him trying to argue with Eddy Hern.

    • @mintvilla2956
      @mintvilla2956 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      Simon's actually incorrect in this., The new 5yr rule only applies to UEFA. Chelsea aren't in Europe, so do not have to adhere to UEFA rules. The 5yr rule is not in the premier league rules.

    • @BillyJacobs94
      @BillyJacobs94 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      ​@mintvilla2956 you do realise that when they qualify for europe those rules will apply

    • @madaxwayne
      @madaxwayne ปีที่แล้ว

      but the caicedo deal wouldve been a year old by then
      they cant retroactively enforce that rule or chelsea would be fcked@@BillyJacobs94

    • @keiron.4612
      @keiron.4612 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      He adds nothing he's
      A Muppet

    • @mintvilla2956
      @mintvilla2956 ปีที่แล้ว

      If*@@BillyJacobs94

  • @saveandinvestwithgiorgiolo8375
    @saveandinvestwithgiorgiolo8375 ปีที่แล้ว +401

    Another important aspect not mentioned in the video is that Chelsea are reducing their wage bill as well by getting rid of high wage earners like Kante/Koulibaly/Havertz/Werner/Kepa/Pulisic and Aubameyang.

    • @londonsfinest6070
      @londonsfinest6070 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      He did partially mention it when talking about Havertz being carried at 25 mill a year, if I understood that correctly

    • @JuanThunder79
      @JuanThunder79 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I think he was on about 10 million a year wages at Chelsea plus bonuses, he had just over 2 years left on his deal when sold. So I think that probably equates to around around £25 million referred to in the video

    • @VeryIntellijent
      @VeryIntellijent ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Yep. Kante and Koulibaly especially had huge salaries.

    • @Veyron1967
      @Veyron1967 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      But they are rumoured to be paying Caicedo £300,000 a week.

    • @Shedend-2
      @Shedend-2 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      @@Veyron1967Chelsea isn’t paying Caicedo more than 120k.

  • @francie6278
    @francie6278 ปีที่แล้ว +364

    It’s refreshing to hear from someone that understands the financial workings of a football club, so many people have opinions on situations they don’t understand at all

    • @cheekclapper3357
      @cheekclapper3357 ปีที่แล้ว +19

      i just find it crazy how nobody is talking about the clubs that RECEIVE these transfer fees. They're not complaining.

    • @jaya8002
      @jaya8002 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      He’s not entirely accurate that’s the issue. He’s talking about the amortisation part. But what about the transfer payables.
      Overall you will see Chelsea post a considerable loss for last season. 21/22 it was at £120m. Last season will be every worse so they will break FFP rules, but it will just be a fine and maybe a summer ban at most. Seems like the owners have accept that to me

    • @mikedon5205
      @mikedon5205 ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@cheekclapper3357really ..
      I used to complain because the way I saw it even if that money could be used to find better replacements , along would come the moneybags teams again hand out more cash and take those players too
      So in effect the club goes nowhere as far as being competitive all it is doing is being a feeder club

    • @dannyk2376
      @dannyk2376 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      You mean its refreshing to hear someone completely ignore/gloss over the glaringly obvious? He’s not explained it well at all

    • @notforplay84
      @notforplay84 ปีที่แล้ว +27

      ​@@jaya8002You have no idea what your talking about. Read FFP before you spew nonsense, that's why all this talk from clueless fans and pundits is nonsensical. And what is your background on losses? Do you know why Chelsea posted these loses last year? Do your homework, because if you think these billionaire businessmen are filthy rich because you don't think they know what they're doing then look in the mirror.. Your a fan and they own a football club

  • @josephcole8046
    @josephcole8046 ปีที่แล้ว +239

    The point that SJ touched on, but didn’t go into much depth on, about Boehly believing football is way short of receiving optimal revenue is a massive factor in his plan as well. It’s actually the entire reason he has bought the club and the consortium behind him are willing to invest these huge fees. They see the potential.
    Football revenue is way below most US sports, despite US sports only having a North American audience and football having a global one. Boehly’s mad transfer spending has come about because he is front loading the amount he will invest in Chelsea in order to position them higher on the football food table for when Premier League and European football starts to realise those attainable revenue figures.
    He is essentially gambling that by, let’s say, 2030, Chelsea’s commercial revenue will be double or more what it currently is, and that that will be a trend across football’s premiere clubs as well.
    Saying that, I don’t think he or the other owners would be commissioned to spend over £1billion of other peoples invested money if they didn’t have very good reason to assume that will happen.

    • @steviemac2681
      @steviemac2681 ปีที่แล้ว +37

      Well let's hope they don't stop the game every 5 minutes for adverts.

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      Thats because of few things. Contracts aren't guaranteed in most American sports. They all have salary caps. And most importantly, they don't buy players with money. They trade players that make up equal value.

    • @brianboyle2681
      @brianboyle2681 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      Bang on - I would go even further to say that by 2030 the super league will be locked in and he wants to make sure he is in the room for that. This new Champions League will be an absolute shambles and won’t make the revenue the clubs want. Only until they take their economics into their hands like in the US will they get value.

    • @josephcole8046
      @josephcole8046 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@brianboyle2681 Yes possibly, I said something similar in another comment as I think that partially explains why Chelsea are still doing 8+ year contracts etc. The transfer fees can still be amortised across that length of time on the Premier League books, it's only the UEFA balance sheets that have put the cap at 5 years, but in 5 year's time, it may be the case that Chelsea don't have to deal with UEFA anymore. Either that, or UEFA will be so desperate to keep the big clubs within their sphere of influence that they relent on the rule (and equally rules that are a nuisance to other clubs). UEFA don't really hold any of the cards going forward tbh.

    • @John-zk7ku
      @John-zk7ku ปีที่แล้ว +15

      This is risky though. American Football is absolutely solid, it's like electricity or water in the US, through the college's etc it will always have a natural system and following, no matter how much they abuse fans with Ad breaks etc and crazy rules they put on players. Plus no other organisation will ever fight for players, It's a monopoly.
      Football in Europe isn't the same, if anything the reach is peaking and about to decline, Sky etc are paying billions for TB right but constant making less. Plus you can't treat players like prisoners in a draft system and pay them peanuts cos they'll just go to Saudi. Or stop playing well and demand moves they can get. American footballers have 0 power. Look at the guys careers the only league the NFL could end in an instant.

  • @BigDome1
    @BigDome1 ปีที่แล้ว +155

    It's an absolute joy to hear Simon talk about stuff like this.

    • @HumanBeingsRThinkingBeings
      @HumanBeingsRThinkingBeings ปีที่แล้ว

      Grealish 100,Rice 105,Caicedo 115
      Haaland 50M,Hojlund 72,Nunez 85
      Media question - City,not USA Owners Clubs
      Media/Establishment Agenda against City?🤔

    • @YOTD777
      @YOTD777 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Simon doesn't even understand what he is talking about....and you agree with him 😂😂😂 Tells us about your brains

    • @bluemoon1716
      @bluemoon1716 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Think for yourself. Simon gets alot of things wrong and has his own bias

    • @summerrr1
      @summerrr1 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      What does Simon know about the topic? Did he used to own Crystal Palace or something?

    • @nicolemonkeviciene791
      @nicolemonkeviciene791 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@YOTD777 and you understand?? Can you have some random chat with Simon about accountancy in football??

  • @ifldiscovery8500
    @ifldiscovery8500 ปีที่แล้ว +45

    Its how when Man City spends no one gets into the nuances how they are profitable, but when Chelsea overspedn adn achieve nothing all of a sudden the nuances count.

    • @williamfarrell4754
      @williamfarrell4754 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Both cheaters dont worry....

    • @darrenslater6327
      @darrenslater6327 ปีที่แล้ว +19

      City have never spent a billion in 12 months no one fucking has🤣🤣

    • @russellward4624
      @russellward4624 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Because City generate more money than Chelsea. They aren't losing 100m a year. Theyve been profitable the last 6-7.

    • @TravisBickle58
      @TravisBickle58 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      ​@@russellward4624If City are profitable for last 6-7 years then you are my wife. Let's go out for dinner hon😅

    • @maumau6961
      @maumau6961 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      ​@@VR46314if Chelsea are cheats, what rule did they break?
      Man City cheated, Chelsea spent alot of money through loopholes.

  • @jebspringfield2188
    @jebspringfield2188 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    You gotta love Simon Jordan! You could see the fog clearing in Martin O Neil’s head as he was explaining it.

  • @LordBathtub
    @LordBathtub ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Long story short the purchase price is split across the length of the contract whereas sales in their entirety are counted in whichever season they're sold in as far as FFP is concerned allowing clever accounting to spread ehe costs and mitigate FFP

    • @seanvaz2391
      @seanvaz2391 ปีที่แล้ว

      But sold players are very rarely paid for in full / upfront so how exactly are they accounting for the entire valuation in a single season or accounting year?

    • @LordBathtub
      @LordBathtub ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @seanvaz2391 as far as I know it's a quirk of the system. Tifo football did a great video explaining it not long ago

  • @assuredantiques1832
    @assuredantiques1832 ปีที่แล้ว +54

    Hilarious 😂 so FFP rather than protecting football clubs from bankruptcy is actively speeding up their demise by indebting them far into the future. If revenues dont rise as expected then it all goes bust.

    • @stephenmason9527
      @stephenmason9527 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      To some degree, all clubs have operated this way for our entire lifetimes. And the bet on the sports financial increase has been a very safe and good one. Don't you wish you could've bought in for part of a Premier League team a few decades ago? You'd be set 🤑

    • @assuredantiques1832
      @assuredantiques1832 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@stephenmason9527 sounds like the big short movie

    • @scottmeehan2422
      @scottmeehan2422 ปีที่แล้ว

      But it helps out team who sold player as they have agreed to split fee over 8/5 years. So will have a guarantee income each year. Very rare these days are transfer fees paid up front.

    • @jackzeldon2883
      @jackzeldon2883 ปีที่แล้ว

      Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool & Spurs owe Hundreds of Millions in Bank Loans & use Millions of Quid in Club Rev to pay the Interest on those Debts & not a word is said & nor should it be b/c those clubs are Massive Brands who can just sell all or part of the club to satisfy the debts.... Chelsea have Zero Debt - these are just FFP #'s on one side of the leger or other & have Zero meaning in real Life....... So many fans & Media have no idea how FFP functions...... FFP does NOT want to Police giant clubs from spending - in fact, if you read FFP it is filled w/ Loopholes designed to produce MORE spending by Wealthy owners of massive Clubs...... In fact, FFP punishes the smaller clubs for doing a Great job developing young talent b/c they get ZERO ffp credit on the ledger for taking a young player from a rookie to a super star b/c the Only way the Club can gain Value towards FFP is by Selling those players
      The Stated goal of FFP to ensure that Clubs do Not Bankrupt themselves using Club Equity against massive Bank Loans trying to keep up w/ the City, Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool type clubs....... The media brilliantly use Mis-Info to get fans in a lather & this exploded traffic to the Content produced by these media organizations....
      Even if a club violates FFP the most they get are financial fines..... the reason smaller clubs must be protected by FFP from Themselves is b/c if a Global Brand like Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea or City actually did go broke they're will be stacks of Billionaires Queued a city block long to buy that club...... but the small to mid size clubs have no hope to attract buyers of that magnitude who are willing / able to overpay in order to rescue it from run away Debt

    • @vinceslapchopper
      @vinceslapchopper ปีที่แล้ว

      @@assuredantiques1832 unlike the housing market, I have yet to see a single sports league folding over. And I am pretty sure Boehly could not care less if he even breaks FFP, this is the owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, the baseball club with the highest payroll in MLB where they have to pay luxury tax every year. Boehly is just doing the same in football and showing the rest of the Premier League how to play the transfer market game properly.

  • @GraemeRoberts
    @GraemeRoberts ปีที่แล้ว +5

    "I'm not admiring it, I'm explaining it." Excellent work.

  • @stefanophonics
    @stefanophonics ปีที่แล้ว +38

    I love how Simon explains things like this for the average person to understand. Well done sir! 👏

    • @fk65682
      @fk65682 ปีที่แล้ว

      But they are only in credit this Summer. They spent £500mil last Summer and January. I don't know where there is confusion. I mean it is simple if you write it down on paper.

  • @dannyk2376
    @dannyk2376 ปีที่แล้ว +97

    Simon seems to forget that they also have amortsied figures on the books for players previously bought and the fee’s recieved for sales will also be in installments so does not hugely offset the spending. No club can sustain starting each season with £120-130m already gone in player fee’s whilst continuing to spend. The trick might work for year 1 and maybe even year 2, but by year 3 you’re massively in the hole. They need even more sales and CL football next season.

    • @ail8322
      @ail8322 ปีที่แล้ว +43

      Fees received for sales are in installments, but you can recognize that revenue immediately under FFP. Also he did talk about amortized figure on the book, which is why Kai was a Profit and not a loss. His amortized value was around 25 and then went and got sold for 65 or so

    • @jaya8002
      @jaya8002 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Add in that this is a club have record losses of £100m+ each of the last two years

    • @kingcecil7126
      @kingcecil7126 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Didn't he just say that?!!

    • @glowwurm9365
      @glowwurm9365 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      I think what folks also fail to appreciate is your taking players with large wages off the book and replacing them with incentivised contracts. These players starting salaries are smaller than those of whom they’ve replaced. Do you think Jackson’s on as much as Aubameng? Or that Nkunku earns as much as Havertz? Or Sanchez as much as Kepa? Or Gusto as much as Azpi?
      Folks can speculate all they want but I’m fairly sure the accountants at Chelsea are slightly more clued up than the average armchair pundit!

    • @jackodees1765
      @jackodees1765 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@ail8322 While that is true, the players they had before Boehly took over weren't exactly free. Lukaku alone will cost Chelsea near 20 million a year in ammortization.

  • @ob1slam
    @ob1slam ปีที่แล้ว +93

    I'm a Liverpool fan and I'm not mad at Chelsea for doing what they're doing. They've made Liverpool look absolutely stupid and I'm genuinely embarrassed by the way my club has handled the past 4 transfer windows.

    • @ralf-5
      @ralf-5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Support Chelsea then you mug

    • @javinc1
      @javinc1 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I can't imagine Kopp staying there much longer after this embarrassment AGAIN of a transfer window. I feel bad for Liverpool fans

    • @ernestnicholas7043
      @ernestnicholas7043 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Keep glazing. "Liverpool fan"

    • @lloydymk2013
      @lloydymk2013 ปีที่แล้ว

      Liverpool made themselves look stupid not chelsea. They tried to hijack the caicedo deal abandoning lavia, inflating caicedo price when chelsea spent weeks in a standstill. Not wanting to go over 80... your club got klopp to talk his name in pre match interviews saying he's signed, then rejected! Then the audacity to go back to lavia like a bummy husband does his wife after eloping with his sidechick fails.... 😂😂 knowing that chelsea had tried and failed to sign lavia for 50 last summer, courting him... its been comedy. All self harm

    • @Theoneandonly1172
      @Theoneandonly1172 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Love liverpool fans like you❤

  • @marktaylor6266
    @marktaylor6266 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Legend of TalkSPORT- love listening to Simon. Best wishes on his road to recovery!! 🤞

  • @Rocky-w5r
    @Rocky-w5r ปีที่แล้ว +129

    Simon's explanation will fly over some people's heads😂.

    • @NC-ck5oj
      @NC-ck5oj ปีที่แล้ว +13

      It will end in disaster for chelsea. This is not sustainable.

    • @chiller2512
      @chiller2512 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      flew over my head like an Eagle

    • @kabelomoeli
      @kabelomoeli ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@chiller2512 Don't worry, just study

    • @weallfollowmanutd
      @weallfollowmanutd ปีที่แล้ว +3

      ​@@chiller2512I'm surprised. Simon was so clear.

    • @antwango
      @antwango ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@NC-ck5ojyup unless theres a clause that players can leave a 8+yr contract.... players at chelsea will grow old and never get to play anywhere else in their prime

  • @warrengrant1390
    @warrengrant1390 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    could listen to Simon talk on this subject all day

  • @izzyonthemap
    @izzyonthemap ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Chelsea aren’t doing anything wrong based on the fact they’ve sold many players during their contracts running at chelsea football club. This adds credit to their balance sheet and helps to balance books in the immediate few seasons ahead within FFP rules.
    BUT if they don’t qualify for the champions league as well as retain a bulk of the financial value their players cost, before selling them then they are going be doomed. Lucky they have poch, that’s the best bit of business they did bc he can do wonders for the football club.
    let’s see.

  • @Joolz1982
    @Joolz1982 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Very insightful and enjoyable to listen to.

  • @captainsaus6740
    @captainsaus6740 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Agree with everything Simon says there but he misses the historical write down of prior purchases from his calculations. The reality is Todd Boehly spend is being amortised at £135m, but there will be a sizeable chunk of amortisation on historical purchases to account for as well.

    • @s1dew1nd3r4
      @s1dew1nd3r4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Exactly! Hence the outrage from everyone

    • @bigears3399
      @bigears3399 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Valid, but which historical purchases are still left at the club? As soon as you sell a player you realise any gains/losses on their book value. The majority of the squad now is either new players or academy players. The only ones I can think of from the abramovich era are ziyech, kepa and lukaku? Ziyech and lukaku are still on track to be sold before the end of the window so will be disposed of with only kepa left who is on loan at Real (70 mil fee over 7 year contract so only 10 mil a year carrying loss anyway)

  • @anurag1588
    @anurag1588 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Silly question but why are the incoming signings allowed to be accounted for on the basis of the length of contract but outgoing players aren't?

    • @special.agent.JeffreySteeleFBI
      @special.agent.JeffreySteeleFBI ปีที่แล้ว

      Because 8 is bigger than 3.... duh!!! & so Naturally won't breach FFP...so salty even after the explanation 😁 ???

  • @cosmicbaggy9637
    @cosmicbaggy9637 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    If this were Simon being asked about City's spending he'd be absolultely crucifying them...

  • @gavinjoyce5278
    @gavinjoyce5278 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Eyesight is a wonderful thing. Look what’s happened to Everton now it’s not a slap on the wrist financial it’s points deduction

  • @Toon1893
    @Toon1893 ปีที่แล้ว +25

    When Saint Max left us and this 'fair market value' thing was spoken about by Richard Masters about all transfers, not just between same owned clubs but 'all' transfers.....how do they decide what is classed as 'fair market value' when a player can go from £4.5m to £115m within 18 months! Just sounds like a load of nonsense

    • @Bdbtg28691
      @Bdbtg28691 ปีที่แล้ว

      You had multiple clubs that were willing to meet that valuation for Caicedo with no conflict of interest. The Saudi state owning their league, the clubs and Newcastle will mean that there will be more scrutiny. No club outside Saudi were interested in ASM for that price. I think people were more concerned with the fees that Chelsea were receiving rather than the ASM one as that felt closer to market value.

    • @UserName-br5zu
      @UserName-br5zu ปีที่แล้ว

      Because it’s not just about market value. It’s about the buying and selling club. £4.5m would have been a lot to the club who Brighton bought Caicedo from hence he was cheaper than his true worth. Now he’s going for his true worth because he’s being sold by a PL club who can afford to hold out for that money.

    • @Bdbtg28691
      @Bdbtg28691 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@UserName-br5zu same thing with Enzo. 15 million to Benfica, 105 million just 6 months later.

    • @Toon1893
      @Toon1893 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Bdbtg28691 yeah the point I'm making isn't about ASM or any other deal done really, only said that because its when it was brought up, its more about how or who decides what is 'fair market value' it sounds a totally pointless statement, i understand if its between dual owned clubs for obvious reasons....what i don't understand is why it would be 'all' transfers with no links between teams, and how 'fair market value' can ever be proven between 2 teams with absolutely no links!

    • @Toon1893
      @Toon1893 ปีที่แล้ว

      @UserName-br5zu yeah but I'm asking who decides and how fair market value is determined, so it is about that lol

  • @johngranahan6102
    @johngranahan6102 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I appreciated that explanation and always good to see Martin O'Neill

  • @ibbyz999
    @ibbyz999 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Chelsea can actually still do what they did last year as the new rule only applies to Uefa not the epl, ie teams playing in Europe. As chelsea are not in Europe this season they are not limited to the 5 years uefa have enforced. Hence why they are carrying on spending the way they are. So expect more of this in this window and probably January. I'm not happy being a Liverpool fan but fair play to them

    • @dashawnballard52
      @dashawnballard52 ปีที่แล้ว

      They can’t get away with pure spending, if they spend more they will break the 3 year 105 million dollar loss rule

    • @ShozzleMeNoz
      @ShozzleMeNoz ปีที่แล้ว

      This is complete nonsense.

    • @ibbyz999
      @ibbyz999 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ShozzleMeNoz How is it? Have you understood what Simon has said? What Chelsea are doing is called amortisation.
      Chelsea's estimated amortised spending in the past three windows under Boehly, using initial transfer figures reported, comes to £157.2 million; this significantly lower number is almost entirely offset by an accounting profit from player sales of £149.6million over the same period.
      Do your research mate

    • @ShozzleMeNoz
      @ShozzleMeNoz ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ibbyz999 Hahaha. Do you think I only just learned about amortisation. Every club uses it. It is a standard accounting when you have an asset with a fixed lifespan i.e. the length of a player's contract.
      It is absolute nonsense that you get a free year where you escape UEFA's FFP rules just because you're not in UEFA competitions.

  • @raga6655
    @raga6655 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Absolutely spot on.

  • @JYCaesar-x8f
    @JYCaesar-x8f ปีที่แล้ว +10

    SJ criticized City for doing exactly the same- selling academy players with no cap to balance the books and City has more revenue than Chelsea. If City were giving 6,8 year contracts to get around FFP he’ll be all over them not to mention most Chelsea sales were to teams closely related to Boehly’s consortium. City gives max 5 year contracts even for expensive buys like Gvardiol.

    • @vPzWalkerx
      @vPzWalkerx ปีที่แล้ว +3

      " not to mention most Chelsea sales were to teams closely related to Boehly’s consortium" 14 sales, 2 were to saudi clubs which is what i assume you're talking about
      2/14 to saudi from chelsea
      1/8 to saudi from city
      2/7 to saudi from liverpool
      Tad dramatic to claim MOST of our sales were to "closely related".
      p.s lapotre could also be going to saudi now so city are racing towards 2/9 players being sold to saudi which is a much bigger percent than 2/14 but that doesn't fit the agenda so we won't mention other clubs.

    • @frankreynolds9930
      @frankreynolds9930 ปีที่แล้ว

      City main problem has always been their dodgy sponsorship which makes them richest club in the world. Literally no one cares about their sales.

  • @garywright8846
    @garywright8846 ปีที่แล้ว

    What about the Inland Revenue, won’t they want their share and the VAT, do they pay that on transfers?

  • @superpantman
    @superpantman ปีที่แล้ว +15

    This is where Simon excels. He understands the legislation behind FFP and spending models.

    • @PedroDiMaggio-dk4lb
      @PedroDiMaggio-dk4lb ปีที่แล้ว +2

      He didn't explain anything. Chelsea have to increase their profit AND hope every single player they've bought works out successfully because they cannot off load these players for the same price they bought them for. It's a recipe for disaster and a massive gamble. If I was a Chelsea fan, I'd be shitting myself.

    • @neitherhereorthere7131
      @neitherhereorthere7131 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@PedroDiMaggio-dk4lb sorry you got upset

    • @PedroDiMaggio-dk4lb
      @PedroDiMaggio-dk4lb ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@neitherhereorthere7131 I'm not upset. Sorry you didn't understand basic arithmetic like that fraud Simon. 😂

    • @Mac-dx4rd
      @Mac-dx4rd ปีที่แล้ว

      @@PedroDiMaggio-dk4lbhe explained it quite well I thought but yes you are right and he said it’s a gamble he even said that

    • @Jcshh
      @Jcshh ปีที่แล้ว

      @@PedroDiMaggio-dk4lbwe’ve just picked up a new sponsor for £50m a season btw

  • @deadnicedave
    @deadnicedave ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Football has lost it's head, end of. £115m for Caicedo, nothing but utter madness.

  • @JoshBradshaw-uk6gb
    @JoshBradshaw-uk6gb ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Fantastic work Simon Jordan. Broken down so effortlessly and understandably for all. Glad to have you back 👍🏻

    • @smu02ns
      @smu02ns ปีที่แล้ว

      but incorrect. tune in at 1130 today for a better understanding

  • @joshuagray5799
    @joshuagray5799 ปีที่แล้ว

    Talksport are lucky to have Simon on there show he is so clued up pleasure to hear him talk and me just learn

  • @Kyleterp1
    @Kyleterp1 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Wages/agent fees/ transfer fees/amortization wand such are going to be part of the new uefa salary restrictions. If chelsea don’t make the CL in the next year or so, it could get ugly for them

  • @AodhanBeag
    @AodhanBeag ปีที่แล้ว +1

    At these prices Joelinton, Guimaraes and Tonali trio for Newcastle seems like great value already

  • @lfcspectre4335
    @lfcspectre4335 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Sir Simon = Top LAD Proper Clobber ✊💯 Facts

  • @matt4495
    @matt4495 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very good show guys. Much better than slanging battles with hearn!!

  • @rickysrighteyebrow8167
    @rickysrighteyebrow8167 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It's almost as if teams have discovered that games are won and lost in the midfield.

  • @K.K000
    @K.K000 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    My brain is hurting 🤕 too many numbers.

  • @abyss7049
    @abyss7049 ปีที่แล้ว +22

    Wait a minute, Simon is saying that they are doing it over 5 years now, because the prem changed the rule to stop these crazy contract lengths... but it is reported Caicedo is signing a 8 year contract? Has the rule been changed or not, or am I just missing something

    • @jacktroote8708
      @jacktroote8708 ปีที่แล้ว +54

      The rule has changed. So you can give a player whatever length you want but the max the FFP amount will spread over will be 5.
      So caicedo can sign a 8 year contract but the money effect through FFP will be spread over 5

    • @p10rambo
      @p10rambo ปีที่แล้ว +19

      That is the uefa rule, the fa still allows it

    • @ccam7802
      @ccam7802 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      not the contract length, chelsea were paying transfer fees over the length of the player contract. that's what has been stopped

    • @abyss7049
      @abyss7049 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@jacktroote8708 Cheers mate. I never looked into it but that makes sense

    • @edmanning274
      @edmanning274 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ccam7802... its not that either. Its how they account for the value of the player on their balance sheet. They could pay the entire transfer fee up front, but the value of the asset they are buying (the player) will be amortised (split into annual amounts) for accounting purposes.

  • @chelsea08FC
    @chelsea08FC ปีที่แล้ว

    Appreciate the business insight from Simon Jordon.

  • @kevd3046
    @kevd3046 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Simon knows the craic..good to see him back and coming back in after his cancer diagnosis and telling his story has made me book appointment..respect due

  • @theludraman
    @theludraman ปีที่แล้ว

    revenue is generally recognized when received so that explanation only holds if the payments on their sales are being received up front. that would be irregular

  • @martinrooney6883
    @martinrooney6883 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I've got so much respect for Martin O'Neil. I'm a celtic fan and he transformed our club, he also gave me and my dad some of the best memories with each other during that time before he past away.

  • @masqueraver3552
    @masqueraver3552 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    wee martin sitting thinking i was on couple of hundred a week when won european cup 🤣

  • @barryniconienko9287
    @barryniconienko9287 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I just found your channel, and this the best explanation of FFP I’ve heard.
    Have you folks talked about the disaster FSG has become, from the best front office in the EPL, to losing Edwards, and Ward the next?
    Is it the fact that FSG is trying to buy an NBA team?
    I digress, but thanks!

    • @frasierfreak92
      @frasierfreak92 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nothing Liverpool does is related to them buying an NBA team. You can’t move money out of Liverpool to that.

  • @daviel1005
    @daviel1005 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    This whole divided by 8 (now 5 with the new rules) thing only works if you aren't overspending every summer. That being said, if someone wants to spend their money in a certain way then I don't see why that should be legislated against and I've never really understood Simon Jordan's arguments against it.

  • @mr786xcx
    @mr786xcx ปีที่แล้ว +4

    When you look at it like this it makes sense.The only problem which I can see is you buy a player and put him on an 8 year contract then after 3 years you want to move that player on and that player doesn't want to go then you've got a huge pay off to make. 😉

    • @leroygunnerman6340
      @leroygunnerman6340 ปีที่แล้ว

      Or he gets injured badly

    • @Mega-DR.Nkrumah
      @Mega-DR.Nkrumah ปีที่แล้ว

      That's why they're on low salary

    • @Mac-dx4rd
      @Mac-dx4rd ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Mega-DR.Nkrumahthey aren’t on low salaries why do you keep saying that ?

    • @Mac-dx4rd
      @Mac-dx4rd ปีที่แล้ว

      Exactly that there is the risk

    • @frankreynolds9930
      @frankreynolds9930 ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@Mac-dx4rdBecause they are. Except Sterling and to a degree Fofona and Cucurella.

  • @masonnealgrove7595
    @masonnealgrove7595 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thing is you always have to include the last few years of transfers that will also be deprecating not just last years spend.

    • @NC-ck5oj
      @NC-ck5oj ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I think he's risking the future of the entire football club. if things dont go to plan on the pitch in the next 5 -8 years, chelsea could go bust

  • @claudemakelele2856
    @claudemakelele2856 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Tell these clowns Simon. You are the man

    • @vPzWalkerx
      @vPzWalkerx ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Coolheghog9112 People said the same during the sanctions 😂

  • @lozcontreras
    @lozcontreras ปีที่แล้ว +1

    In terms of FFP, all good. Bank balance soon to be -€1billion.
    They don’t actually get paid upfront for sales, and they don’t actually pay teams over 8 installments over 8 years. This is something Chelsea fans don’t seem to understand with how it’s explained, it’s just how it is amortized for FFP.

  • @ThatGuyNorm
    @ThatGuyNorm ปีที่แล้ว +6

    850 million in 2 years. How can they get away with this with no European football. It's ridiculous

  • @neilbennett7651
    @neilbennett7651 ปีที่แล้ว

    This is an interesting point, but isn't it dependent on clubs not amortising payments in the same way for the players they've bought from Chelsea?

  • @brucegarethgeorge
    @brucegarethgeorge ปีที่แล้ว +3

    But what Simon isbnot accounting for is that the players sold are not paid for upfront but paid for over a few years as well

    • @wazzywax3248
      @wazzywax3248 ปีที่แล้ว

      are you for real g?
      studying accounting should be a must now

    • @brucegarethgeorge
      @brucegarethgeorge ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@wazzywax3248 are you're an accountant?

  • @londonsfinest6070
    @londonsfinest6070 ปีที่แล้ว

    How do you capitalize on a contractual asset besides the obvious way of selling it?

  • @peterhunter8274
    @peterhunter8274 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    It’s a smack on the wrist unless you play in Italy. Juventus got docked points and kicked out of Europe. No other league has had anything like that level of accountability or punishment

    • @travisbickle5829
      @travisbickle5829 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well not many clubs are as openly run by the mafia as Juve are.

    • @newstreetbridge834
      @newstreetbridge834 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Juventus weren’t just overspending

    • @TheGiantKillers
      @TheGiantKillers ปีที่แล้ว

      The rumour mill is that the FA are looking to October where they see Everton as an opportunity to hit them hard and send a message out to the rest of the League.

    • @darrenslater6327
      @darrenslater6327 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@TheGiantKillersEverton? City are the ones with 100+ FFP breaches they need to be relegated as a statement

    • @Beyondqqq
      @Beyondqqq ปีที่แล้ว +3

      ​@newstreetbridge834 Overspending wasn't the problem, it was for over inflating player values. If most prem clubs were under the same scrutiny as Juve, the entire league would be banned.

  • @andretirta9801
    @andretirta9801 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    6:11 "chelsea is okay like everton were" best part

  • @TheMercWithMouth
    @TheMercWithMouth ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Thought ffp only allowed for £30mill loss each season. Ultimately if todd gets away with it, thats his good fortune.

  • @Ibrakadabra-cg6ho
    @Ibrakadabra-cg6ho ปีที่แล้ว +1

    But chelsea dont get 65m upfront for havertz, but around 20m over 3 years. An other point, he uses the small netspent amount in romans last years to compensate the huge outgoings now (alongside the 8 year contracts and so on)

    • @mercuryelite
      @mercuryelite ปีที่แล้ว

      Chelsea recieve the full amount over 3 years. But they get to book the entire fee this year. That is how the accounting works.

  • @ivalemfana
    @ivalemfana ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Arsenal still have spent more on netspend than chelsea since Arteta arrived .

    • @masonnealgrove7595
      @masonnealgrove7595 ปีที่แล้ว

      No mate

    • @tumusantrina2055
      @tumusantrina2055 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It's because u hate Arsenal where did they spent

    • @ivalemfana
      @ivalemfana ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@tumusantrina2055 I don't hate Arsenal , but take some time and see which teams have spent the most in terms of netspend .

    • @Z.S1992
      @Z.S1992 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Comparing Arteta's spend in 4 years to just over a year of spending since Boehly came in, top stuff👍🏼

    • @robertemmanueljonjo2889
      @robertemmanueljonjo2889 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Using fanciful argument to justify your team spending 800 odd millions in 3 transfer windows

  • @johngarrett7861
    @johngarrett7861 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Simon is clearly very knowledgeable is this area i wish he stuck to it instead of trying to talk about boxing!

  • @saindst
    @saindst ปีที่แล้ว +3

    So chelsea have no problem unlike what every other youtub comment 'football finance expert' says. Got it.

  • @ifthisismyhandlewhereismyspout
    @ifthisismyhandlewhereismyspout ปีที่แล้ว +2

    So are Chelsea not going to able to buy for the next 8 years then since theyre spreading almost a billion in costs over that time? Something tells me they will never stop spending like this. FFP punishemnts need to be much harsher. What ever happened with Man City and their whole cheating scandal? The whole things a joke. Once again money rules all.

  • @philthatcher6111
    @philthatcher6111 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Matt Law and Ben Jacobs expertly break down Chelsea's happenings on a daily basis. Both are regarded decent journalists and majority of Chelsea fans have faith. Chelsea will be okay, all these players coming in, payments are spread out over a decade ish...

    • @les_crow
      @les_crow ปีที่แล้ว

      Didn't they already change the law allowing that?

    • @YinWhoo-zx2sz
      @YinWhoo-zx2sz ปีที่แล้ว +1

      That's exploiting the rules for financial merit.

  • @logicshenjere900
    @logicshenjere900 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    For the first time in history, Simon used his knowledge for the benefit of viewers.

  • @adrianrandall2378
    @adrianrandall2378 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Great explanation of Chelsea’s strategy by Simon

    • @spark556
      @spark556 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Imagine if City did this 😂 he would lose it

  • @seanargue205
    @seanargue205 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I think Simon is great but his figures dont add up theyve taken massive losses on selling pullisic Coulibaly mendy Kovacic. Chelsea spending is way above their revenue.

  • @HailiMary
    @HailiMary ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Not in Europe ,,has no shirt sponsor,,spent like 800 million in one season and still FFP wow,,that’s magic😂😂😂😂😂

    • @Mac-dx4rd
      @Mac-dx4rd ปีที่แล้ว

      Didn’t watch him explain it quite well then ?

    • @amanamendra3153
      @amanamendra3153 ปีที่แล้ว

      Watch this video haters like you need to understand how FFP works rather than running your mouth. Cry more😂

    • @HailiMary
      @HailiMary ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Mac-dx4rd even a deaf and blind can understand it quite clearly ,,,u still need it ?

    • @HailiMary
      @HailiMary ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@amanamendra3153 mark my words my boy ,,surely a point deduction,fine ,transfer ban or even relegation incoming

    • @Mac-dx4rd
      @Mac-dx4rd ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@HailiMary no but you obviously didn’t understand, I will break it down for you quickly they have spent a lot of money which is spread out over many years and have sold players which is instantly received (for ffp terms) yes it’s a gamble for the future but for now it’s fine it’s really not that complicated

  • @maneshipocrates2264
    @maneshipocrates2264 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great explanation for the couch experts. KTBFFH!

  • @KAL-589
    @KAL-589 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Thanks Simon for clearing this up for all the sad, hurt Liverpool fans screaming ffp ❤

    • @craighewitt223
      @craighewitt223 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Not screaming anything!
      He wanted you not us, seriously, it's no big deal, don't know why our own are crying about it?

    • @KAL-589
      @KAL-589 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@craighewitt223 You obviously missed to read all the comments from the previous videos....

    • @jasonrussell2303
      @jasonrussell2303 ปีที่แล้ว

      Look at wht Chelsea hav spent compared to Liverpool and u still couldn't beat us in your own back yard

    • @KAL-589
      @KAL-589 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@jasonrussell2303 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

    • @tom-ir3nv
      @tom-ir3nv ปีที่แล้ว

      Maybe Chelsea will manage to finish higher than mid table now

  • @cameronpieterse
    @cameronpieterse ปีที่แล้ว

    What about the wages? I only hear about 800m spend on transfers? What about the player contracts????

    • @frankreynolds9930
      @frankreynolds9930 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Most of them are on smaller wages and have performance bonus instead. So easy to sell in future.

  • @CdNithin-pr2kw
    @CdNithin-pr2kw ปีที่แล้ว +6

    If caicedo signed for liverpool the talk now would be "are they going to win the league or treble"
    However if chelsea sign players are they breaching ffp rules.
    A British record transfer has been completed now and instead these talkspsort Muppets keep talking about ffp breach allegations.

    • @adr2567
      @adr2567 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Obviously because Chelsea are destroying FFP and making a joke of sustainability 😂

    • @kanebobbin
      @kanebobbin ปีที่แล้ว +4

      They've spent about 3x as much as liverpool in 7 years in three windows that might be the issue

    • @cheekclapper3357
      @cheekclapper3357 ปีที่แล้ว

      if anything the sustainability of football within the premier league is improving with these transfers. Brighton sign Caicedo for 3.5 million, and sell for almost 100x that amount.

    • @wisdomnzube4121
      @wisdomnzube4121 ปีที่แล้ว

      They are all salty Liverpool and United fans....
      They see Chelsea and City as foreign clubs....
      Liverpool, United Newcastle as English clubs.

    • @kanebobbin
      @kanebobbin ปีที่แล้ว

      @wisdomnzube4121 newcastle owned by Saudi liverpool owned by yanks United owned by yanks I don't what your talking about

  • @barrypegg3070
    @barrypegg3070 ปีที่แล้ว

    Change the rules. To register player the buying team should have to disclose what they are paying and when, plus what they are also paying to agents, signing on fees etc. The selling and buying clubs should then have to reflect those values in the books. None of this selling club reporting full transfer value on day 1 when they might not actually be paid for years. Similarly, the buying club would have to report when the money is paid to third parties not just based on length of contract. If the clubs want to do something to sell the debt or borrow the money to finance a deal that should be ignored and just go on the actual transfer values. If a buying club is found guilty of not reporting these figures correctly, simply tell the player he is fee agent and can sign for any club except the one he was registered too.

  • @Bigb3nn
    @Bigb3nn ปีที่แล้ว +6

    These envious rival fans just need a smart owners

    • @macker33
      @macker33 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Wonder will you still think hes a smart owner in five years time

    • @onetwo8847
      @onetwo8847 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      "smart owners" 😂🤦‍♂ Do you have ANY idea how ruined you are gonna be in the long run...?

  • @smanslam1
    @smanslam1 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Also, wages are to be considered. Players like Havertz and Mount had he signed a new contract will likely get more wages than record signings Enzo and Moises.

    • @jaya8002
      @jaya8002 ปีที่แล้ว

      But player like Sterling came in on the same Wages and Havertz. And if they paying £120m for Caicedo I can’t see it being for anything less that £250k

    • @smanslam1
      @smanslam1 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @jaya8002 I think it will be way less than 250k for Caicedo. Big transfer fees don't always translate to big wages. Caicedo is relatovely still in the beginning of his stardom, and he is not coming from one of the traditional big clubs.

    • @jaya8002
      @jaya8002 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@smanslam1 I doubt it. But regardless I think you’ll see the overall wage bill increase or be around the same level. End of the day there’s no consequence to failing FFP transfer ban at most or a fine

  • @cardiacresp
    @cardiacresp ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Chelsea have spent something like a billion dollars in one year on transfers. If FFP is to actually mean anything chelsea should be absolutely shredded by the regulators!

  • @CulturedGrug90
    @CulturedGrug90 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    As a liverpool fan i was really hoping you were going to say the opposite i gotta be honest. Been a rough few days haha

  • @iguiste23
    @iguiste23 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    Yup we were talking about this yesterday and I laughed about the fact they spent over half a billion last season and still finished 12th. Chelsea's spending in under two years has been insane. The clubs lost the plot and people say Man Utd, Liverpool and Man City spend a lot? yeah but not £800.000million a year that's out of of this world even for a PL football club. 🤣😂

    • @johnhopkinson4054
      @johnhopkinson4054 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      They brought in 250 mil from sales which you conveniently fail to mention so really 550 mil spent

    • @jayspringer56789
      @jayspringer56789 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      They've sold alot to. They are building something and it is going to be scary for the rest of the league when they have a full team of players under 25 years old with 5+ years left on their contracts. If other teams don't start buying more youth players, they will be in big trouble in a few years. Only time will tell but it looks scary to me.

    • @DrSoulKing
      @DrSoulKing ปีที่แล้ว +2

      ​@@johnhopkinson4054
      It's weird you talk about -550m net spend like it's completely normal 😅 They talk about Saudi Qatar Emirates but none of them ever spend that much.

    • @DrSoulKing
      @DrSoulKing ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@jayspringer56789
      They finished 10th last year and it wont be better this year 😅 You don't build a team with money but with motivated players for success.

    • @abdullahiabdullateef973
      @abdullahiabdullateef973 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@DrSoulKing Football is all about money. If you don't spend you can't compete

  • @ClarenceBaloyi
    @ClarenceBaloyi ปีที่แล้ว

    Academy players can have value 9n the balance sheet if the epl makes it a rule that all plays have buy out clause - it's not perfect, but it's better thank what's going on now

  • @96saqlain
    @96saqlain ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Basically, the 19 other club owners are stupid not to find these loopholes. Nobody is stopping the 19 other clubs from doing this. Liverpool, Man city, United, Newcastle have all got the money to do what Chelsea is doing. You need owners with ambition.

    • @tomwhite5868
      @tomwhite5868 ปีที่แล้ว

      You need good accountants more like...

    • @Michael-ff4pq
      @Michael-ff4pq ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It's because the other clubs have a brain and don't just want to buy all the players and put them on massive contracts!! Imagine paying all this money with 8 year contracts only for players to fail, then there's no way of getting them off the books.... the chelsea owner hasn't a clue and is treating the club like having a cheat code on fifa 😂

    • @96saqlain
      @96saqlain ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Michael-ff4pq that’s where you need good scouts. And the scouts have picked out absolute gems since January. Most of the signings have been less than 30 million going by the current state of the market will definitely be sold at a profit whenever they are needed to sell.
      They are billionaires for a reason. Being ignorant and calling them clueless won’t make your club better and sign some decent players

  • @jaimeleonguzman4328
    @jaimeleonguzman4328 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Incoming liverpool expert ffp analytics

  • @louisl5864
    @louisl5864 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Everyone’s always been obsessed with what we do, if it wasn’t for us football would be boring and everyone knows it 😂 we ARE the transfer market

  • @shaunswarbrick1493
    @shaunswarbrick1493 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Martin took an eyes open nap from 1:30 to 2:30

  • @YouAimYourArrowsHigh
    @YouAimYourArrowsHigh ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Forgive me if Ive got this one badly wrong but isnt Jordan assuming all the Chelsea sales have been paid in full up front? What if Mount and Havertz's fees are being broken down into 5 year installments?
    Also, Chelsea have cleared the decks this year with selling off players they didnt need. Who are they gonna sell next year to recoup money? Soon theyre gonna have to sell the players theyve only just signed... while still paying the original transfer fees over the 8 year contracts 😂

    • @JamesHussain82
      @JamesHussain82 ปีที่แล้ว

      Would you rather sell a flop with 2 years left or 5 years left?

    • @ow8374
      @ow8374 ปีที่แล้ว

      Ok professor 🤓

    • @zackabdull912
      @zackabdull912 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      what you are talking about might cause cash flow problems for smaller teams that don't generate much money but in the books, it's written that they received it and some companies deal with that specific problem they give you the money upfront and they go and owe e.g. Arsenal if Chelsea ever face cash flow problems
      second, the majority of the money generated by the clubs goes to wages and Chelsea cleared a majority of their heavy earners, and their wage bill is slightly healthy, which frees up money.
      lastly, all Chelsea has to do is not lose more than 105m for every 3year period to avoid ffp

    • @YouAimYourArrowsHigh
      @YouAimYourArrowsHigh ปีที่แล้ว

      @@zackabdull912 ah okay. Thanks for explaining it

    • @YanbuQatar
      @YanbuQatar ปีที่แล้ว

      @@YouAimYourArrowsHigh most of the 800 mil has been under 21 kids from around the world..mainly south america..theyve been loaned off to mainly to chelsea's sister club strasbourg and other places to develop and gain more market value..if they then find themselves in contention for the chelsea squad they get in there..if not they get sold..hence making more money for what chelsea bought them for along with the 8-9 year contracts everyone signed so the value of the players dont drop because of contract length..at least thats the plan

  • @adamwillcox522
    @adamwillcox522 ปีที่แล้ว

    Compare this insight to the tosh Gabby A spouts…. I hope they’re on very different hourly rate!

  • @soljaman7926
    @soljaman7926 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Moises Caicedo chose Chelsea over Liverpool who were 12 position last season and with no champions League football 😂😂😂😂 Crazy

    • @finnredmond3192
      @finnredmond3192 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      They gave a lifetime contract to the kid

    • @LOBBYTHEROBBER
      @LOBBYTHEROBBER ปีที่แล้ว

      You're not following this soljaman. More reading , less commenting.

    • @KellysHeroes777
      @KellysHeroes777 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      He's also getting paid probably double what Liverpool can offer

    • @soljaman7926
      @soljaman7926 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@finnredmond3192 that's not the case, though , it's about promise and loyalty

    • @soljaman7926
      @soljaman7926 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@LOBBYTHEROBBER I know more than you

  • @DDDfootball
    @DDDfootball ปีที่แล้ว

    Great explanation!

  • @geoffreywesonga7865
    @geoffreywesonga7865 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Well explained. If it's Chelsea buying you complain. If it's newcastle, Mancity Arsenal. They are doing good business. Shut up, Chelsea go go go up up up

  • @liamclarke5275
    @liamclarke5275 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You're forgetting their wages as well in the FFP calcs

  • @jaya8002
    @jaya8002 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I actually can’t believe some of the misinformation being given here. Simon said unless they’ve carried huge losses on the last 3 years 😂😂go and look at there loss level £500m over the past 3 years

    • @mcfcok3773
      @mcfcok3773 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      He talks a good talk. But hes bitter as they come, its hilariuos.

  • @Witsey
    @Witsey ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Todd is a businessman, he knows what he’s doing.

  • @YOTD777
    @YOTD777 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It is not for Simon to explain to fulfill his ego, but for UEFA through FFP to investigate and decide 😂😂😂

    • @Mac-dx4rd
      @Mac-dx4rd ปีที่แล้ว

      What ? He explained it simply quite well I thought

    • @YOTD777
      @YOTD777 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Mac-dx4rd Why not wait until FFP make their case and stop listening to Simon pontificate about nothing.

    • @Mac-dx4rd
      @Mac-dx4rd ปีที่แล้ว

      @@YOTD777 you can see what the rules are on uefa and premier league websites

    • @RL-
      @RL- ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@YOTD777there's nothing to investigate, which is why Jordan is explaining these very simple rules for the hard-headed or pancake-brained types banging on about 'how does FFP not apply to Chelsea?!'. He's explaining very clearly why nothing is wrong.
      If you're alluding to the recent investigation into Chelsea as if it's related, it isn't. That was about scrutinising Abramovich-era transactions from 2012-2019 to see if the numbers were accurate. Boehly's team brought it to light, self-reported the discrepancies to UEFA and were cooperating fully. The investigation concluded in July and Chelsea paid a fine. They're not being investigated for spending too much, or whatever else the average TH-cam comment section monkey thinks at the moment.

  • @prezike6683
    @prezike6683 ปีที่แล้ว

    There are other football finance expects who have been writing heavily on on Chelsea’s FFP situation and say different with data to support their claims and been dismissed by some as an amateur by some, yet they are actual experts.
    Glad you invited them on to engage on this complex subject. I hope some keep an open mind to other perspectives on this, but this does not mean everything said is entirely wrong by any side.
    however, the reality is that Chelsea may be willingly and knowingly, accepting that they will violate FFP.
    Why that is is certainly a worthwhile question to ask. I have my own thoughts, but I’ll keep them to myself for now here.

  • @prakashr7011
    @prakashr7011 ปีที่แล้ว

    how is the buying amortized over 5-8 years while selling is instant ?

  • @matthewquinney1628
    @matthewquinney1628 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Newcastle’s Midfield looking like a bargain

  • @babz6969
    @babz6969 ปีที่แล้ว

    Good explanation Simon but unfair comparison on Saudi vs Chelsea. From a pure accounting view, if Chelsea buy and capitalise a player, the amortisation will hit their operating profits, no differently vs paying a large salary expense instead like the Saudis. In a business sense, you could say it’s a smart move by the Saudis vs having to pay huge transfer fees upfront. Whilst cash flow likely isn’t an issue for them, higher cash flows are generally more attractive.
    From a valuation or commercial perspective, you wouldn’t take any of the assets at book value when looking at the economics of a business - you’d take the fair market value of the players or even capitalise a percentage of historical wages as a proxy - if they get Neymar on a contract that will be value on the BS from an investors point of view.
    At the end of the day, almost all businesses in the early stages spend significant capex and suffer losses. Eventually the company’s invested capital builds up, the return on capital increases, and the reinvestment required each year to sustain or grow returns falls to market levels. In a business sense they’re doing what we see every other growth business do.

  • @bigben8272
    @bigben8272 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Top man Simon! Thanks for your explanation.

  • @ajmelectricalcontractors
    @ajmelectricalcontractors ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Chelsea may well hear from FFP, im sure UEFA did not appreciate the bending of the rules with the 8 year player contracts as well as the ridicolous spending that still continues

    • @WOLFanddBEAR
      @WOLFanddBEAR ปีที่แล้ว +2

      The only thing we've violated this transfer window is Liverpool.

    • @Stantheman848
      @Stantheman848 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      ​@@WOLFanddBEARchelsea are a plastic club... not a football club.

    • @neitherhereorthere7131
      @neitherhereorthere7131 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nothing to do with FIFA. And besides like there activities are squeaky clean.

    • @neitherhereorthere7131
      @neitherhereorthere7131 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Stantheman848 sorry you got upset 😂

    • @Stantheman848
      @Stantheman848 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@neitherhereorthere7131 i didn't... just making an observation.

  • @nuudelz3711
    @nuudelz3711 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The long term contracts will be the next item they look at for breaching FFP. None of their signings are staying for the full 9 years

  • @miguelpidi1235
    @miguelpidi1235 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great breakdown makes sense

  • @temiOgun-t2e
    @temiOgun-t2e ปีที่แล้ว

    Make your mind up. Balance sheet recognition or P&L surplus?