I’m waiting for 2-3 years time, when players they don’t want are stuck on mortgage-length contracts and have to be paid out to leave 🍿 Mudryk the first casualty.
Has anyone been stuck so far? that's why you give them low salaries it's easier to sell. See how hard it is to sell sterling and lukaku?@@u-Dramatic_avocado5867
Speak the truth, They signed them on the long term contracts as a loop hole in FFP rules which has now been changed because of them. How they are complying with FFP is baffling they aren’t even in the Champions League.
It’s the pure profit sales they make from the academy players. Mount Gallagher chalobah not to mention havertz they didn’t lose much money on sooner or later though the cookie will crumble
If they fail to get top 4 this and next season I think this whole thing will come crumbling down and they will be in a financial situation like Barca but without a shiny new stadium
Arsenal having a number of average players on high wages cripled them financially and led to Wengers dismissal. Chelsea have taken those bad habits to a new level. I don't believe these players contracts are weighted on first team appearances, as no agent would advise their client to sign. This is a house of cards that will collapse within 2 seasons
Running a club through a spreadsheet versus building a coherent football squad. The funny thing is even on low wages a lot of these kids are way overpaid for what they are. Mudryk for instance will be happy to cash those checks for the next decade.
I’m confused. What bad state was Chelsea in exactly? They blamed Tuch for the first 3 months of the season after they won the Champions league as their rock bottom? What was exactly wrong besides coaching and/or an identity. They had world class players all over the pitch and the bench (hence winning the champions league 6 months prior to the firing). They decide to do a wholesale onverhual on all their players and bought a bunch of unproven kids on 8 year deals. The problem is the new owners because I’m sure if Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, none of this would be happening. I think most American owned clubs in the prem deal with the same issues and I won’t even go down that rabbit hole, but we all can assume why
If a 17 yr old Messi or Ronaldo wants a 10 year old deal I’d immediately say “shut up now and take my money” lest they regret, but apparently no such player wants that kind of a long deal because they know their worth can only go up. Makes one wonder why the likes of Mudryk sign bloody long-term deals
It’s easy to make fun of Chelsea now, but you can’t ignore the amount of talent they have. If they get osimhen, they’ll just need some time to build chemistry.
You cannot justify this. We want clubs to generate their own players, and play their own players. We do not want the team who can spend the most wins all the trophies. Where is the loyalty now, where is fair play? Sir Bobby Robson signed 18 players for Ipswich in 13 years at the club, and Chelsea have signed 35 players in 2 seasons. It needs to stop.
One thing to point out is Chelsea have the youngest squad in the league and Spurs have the second youngest, they are both about 3.3 years younger when compares to Brighton who are third on the list. If either club get it right, particularly Spurs they will be set up with exceptional talent for years.
lol Arsenal had the 2nd youngest squad 2 seasons ago, finished 2nd. Spuds and more Chelsea specifically screwing themselves so spectacularly is fun to witness because they have young players who aren’t incentivised to perform or grow, their whole career is paid for lol. They won’t be setup with exceptional talents, because they will never go to clubs like Chelsea and spurs.
Mate as a Chelsea fan I’m embarrassed by the way our club is being run. And what’s worse is we still could get a points deduction. Tell me you are 100% sure a points deduction wouldn’t throw us into the battle that no one wants to mention and don’t say it’ll never happen cause Aston Villa said it wouldn’t, Newcastle said it wouldn’t and Leeds said it wouldn’t… how’s that go?
@@JamesAttwood-f3m clearly you don't listen , he said having long term contracts for players helps the team to comply with financial fair play and PSR rules .
People are talking too much like experts how Chelsea owners are doing their businesses while many of the people talking have no clue of their life business.
Clubs will be queuing up to sign the fourth choice players behind Jackson, Badiashile, Mudryck and co, pay a huge fee, and offer contracts matching Chelsea's 70k a week for 8 years. None of them will be 'doing a Bogarde' and will quite happily tear their contracts up to earn 5K a week over two years at Bristol Rovers 😂
after each season a players transfers value drops as they have less on the contract if they're not playing the value is very little as they won't be playing for their countries if they can't even get on the bench it's throwing money down a drain
@@domingos_m There are, the UEFA chief guaranteed that it's real and proven, but the FA are very careful with to treat anything involving investment from Arabs.
They might have players on "relatively" low wages but they have 42 "first team players" of which a maximum of 25 can be registered to play in Premier League (provided 7 are homegrown). That means they have 17 players they will still have to pay but won't have any chance of playing for the club. Plus I they are still being linked with buying more players.
2:35 The crucial thing you’re forgetting there my friend, is that it’s all well and good saying they can be sold easier because they’re on lower wages- But the player still has to agree to go. If a player is happy with their money, and on a long contract, they’re under no obligation to go. You want Disasi to go, but he doesn’t wanna… so you have to pay him £20M to cancel his contract, or compensate his move, depending on what the other club is willing to offer him. Thats not exactly a brilliant situation to be in. Ask Man United if they love having their players in high paying long lasting contracts. There are players they’ve wanted to sell for 4 years and counting. And back to Chelsea- Disasi is one of the MID-TIER earners. You don’t even want to know what they’d have to pay Enzo to force sell him. I mean, it’s nearly £80M!
Yes, but joao felix raheem sterling, christopher nkunku, cole palmer, nikolas jakson, lukaku, Pedro neto, mykhaylo mudryck are all an big wages and are all promised important roles
Chelsea when taken over in 2022 had just won the champions league and had a world class manager. The squad was way better and had winners, so the club was taken over in a very good state. Now the club has gone back 10 years, yes theres plent of potential but that doesnt mean anything unless you have a manager that has a vision and stays there 3-5 years.
I agree with you 💯 as a chelsea fan I see the owners are doing a great job and in the future they will dominate the game and they will have a large selection of professional players that they can use for the first team or sell for a profit!! When the owners spend over 5 billions, they have to do this so they can have a better return on the investment (ROI)
I think it’s a great idea to sign or renew contracts for less money but longer contracts. For example we (Arsenal) have trouble shifting some of our players due to the wages that they are on. As long as those contracts are within the rules then it’s all good.
The concept of low wages with incentives only really works if a player plays to the structure of the incentive. By that I mean, if he really over performs the terms of the contract he'll get his incentive payments but he/his manager will then ask for a higher wage. That's where Chelsea are in trouble.
Where the logic fails is long contracts for players who never or consistently play means their market value may dip significantly when you sell. So do you / can you sell them without incurring a significant loss during their contract?
Problem i see is over the next few years the PL will be reducing the number of combined loans in and out a club can have to something like 6 players. The squad needs trimmed down to a managable size. You cant have 17 attacking first team players at a club. 😂
Not logical. 5 Keepers, 6 Centre backs, 4 Full backs, 7 Central Midfielders, 7 Wide players and 5 Strikers. Most of em bang average. I haven't even included the U21's 😂
Closer to baseball. You lock in a guy early so as wages inflate, yours are frozen on the long deal. Problem is how powerful premier league players, agents are and the options they have
This people find new negatives about chelsea to keep themselves busy.....prem just started..all I'm hearing from the pundits are Chelsea's 50 players what about the topic that actually matters the 115 charges,the case,what we could expect...
Chelsea’s strategy is to buy every player possible to stop them joining other clubs to prevent them from strengthening that’s not how it works! And the long contracts is to act as a deterrent from other clubs becoming interested in their players!
The long contracts is for Chelsea to comply with FFP. It's called amortization - you spread a players transfer fee over a longer period. E.g £50m on a 3 year contract = £16m per year.(FFP😡) But £50m on a 6 year contract is £8m yearly.(FFP😄)
OSHIMEN + PALMER + NKUNKU + NETO 🦍🥶🎈 Chelsea podría estar en el Top 4 la próxima temporada🔥🔵 Jörgensen. Gusto. Fofana. Cotwill. Cucu Caicedo. R.Lavia. Nkunku 10 C.Palmer. Neto/Felix Osimhen
What he says from a business standpoint makes sense. Yes, a risk worth taking, but isn't that the case when buying a footballer in general? They will have a lower wage bill than all the top 6 clubs with longer contracts. The issue they have is no one buys players anymore when they have a long contract, they wait until they have 2 or 3 years left. However, because they bought many of these players for relatively cheap fees 30-40 mil, they will probably be able to recoup most of that money even if they don't do that well through a loan with an obligation to buy. The model is different and has its pros and cons. I think we need to judge Chelsea in a couple of years, not now.
It's alright saying we'll just sell them. If they aren't playing, their value is going to drop. A lot of teams are already trying to tighten the purse strings so potential buyers (teams who can match wages) will be limited.
@@MatThomas-il3dn Maybe you should try speaking and write my language and I'm sure Mat Thomas would bombed my language. By the way professor how many languages to you speak?
There's no way the total is 191 for the 21 players in the current premier league squad. This must be including the players out on loan, the 10-15 players who have been told they have no future at the club including reserve team and youth team players purchased over the last 3 years. Not every Chelsea player in premier league squad is on 7 year deals, but even if they were 7 x 21 = 147, plus 2 more for Palmer. =149. More SSN anti Chelsea bias. The fact Chelsea's overall wage budget is also impressive as it's LOWER than other clubs but their assets are protected. Locking down top players for 7 years on low wages with incentives means the players have to make Chelsea successful to either earn more money, earn a new contract or earn a transfer to leave. In Spain to protect themselves clubs lock down players on massively inflated minimum release clauses like 300-500 million to leave and then pay high wages, but now clubs like Barca are nearly bankrupt. Chelsea are trying to do the same thing that doesn't cost them massive wages or make their players unsellable because of massive release clauses. Is there nothing else news worth happening in the football world than Chelsea's contract approach for the last 3 years? Pretty sure other clubs will soon copy Chelsea and try this approach to long contracts on low wages instead of 300K a week on 5 year deals for players like Jason Sancho or Gabriel Jesus, when you could have Palmer or Neto for 120K a week over 7-9 years, and be more likely to receive a transfer fee for them instead of leaving on a free. Not sure if it's a better way to run a club, but we'll find out in 7 years time, but the plan is to be more financially stable over the long term, especially when they sell another 10 players.
I get what that bloke is saying but that only works assuming even 8 players don’t work out. they got 20 players not working out. Also it’s not as easy as sell because they got low wages. other clubs know they have a Ton of players they need to get rid of so they are gonna be strong armed in the market and take huge losses that’ll affect FFP which they already struggle with
If Chelsea aren’t worried about Chelsea. Why is everyone else? Just sit back and get your popcorn ready 😂
I’m waiting for 2-3 years time, when players they don’t want are stuck on mortgage-length contracts and have to be paid out to leave 🍿 Mudryk the first casualty.
That's Chelsea's problem
Has anyone been stuck so far? that's why you give them low salaries it's easier to sell. See how hard it is to sell sterling and lukaku?@@u-Dramatic_avocado5867
Saudi Arabia is always a solution 😅
Popcorn to watch them dethrone City?
Chelsea's New signing is Argentinian El Embryo Fetus.On a 28 year contract.
Yh that didn't bang
@@TT_2cleanyou sit down when you pee
@@TT_2cleantell me about it🫠😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@TommyRobinson-u1m What a dry comeback
@@TT_2cleanliterally commenting on all the comments slating Chelsea, rattled 😂
The appearance/goal incentives explains why they argue over who takes the free kicks and penalties
Chelsea players aged 55, still playing for Chelsea! LOL
Madueke 👀😂
They should have a collective goal bonus like a normal club.😅
Nope, thats down to unregulated competitiveness of really YOUNG players.
Kovacic dribbling past Enzo and Caicedo for a goal sums up Chelsea
£30M vs £220M
I’m still shocked they let all those important players leave in the same window Chelsea is dead
And HAVERTZ scored a beautiful header for arsenal 😂
@yuhuuDman yeah Chelshit had the world convinced Felix and Havertz were bad players 😂
@@johnrockyryan boehly kicking out every players who have little Chelsea dna in them he definitely an agent sent to destroy the club
There is this idea that the Chelsea owners know something that we and other clubs don’t know, and I 100% agree with that
like stupidity?😂
Far as I know clownlake are building a 120 point club with 12 player's on the pitch 😂😂😂
Clown lake are trying set a trend so others do the same 😂😂
That whole idea falls down when you look at the quality of the players they've bought and the amounts they've paid.
Lol what happen to Strasbourg...They have same situation like Chelsea...Spend like no tomorrow last 2 year yet fighting for relegation 😅
Boehly is a nutcase players are literally arguing on the pitch and what does he do? Buys aload more 😂 clubs a myth 😅
Speak the truth, They signed them on the long term contracts as a loop hole in FFP rules which has now been changed because of them. How they are complying with FFP is baffling they aren’t even in the Champions League.
They don’t even have a shirt sponsor, it’s mental.
It’s the pure profit sales they make from the academy players. Mount Gallagher chalobah not to mention havertz they didn’t lose much money on sooner or later though the cookie will crumble
If they fail to get top 4 this and next season I think this whole thing will come crumbling down and they will be in a financial situation like Barca but without a shiny new stadium
Not anymore, you cant spread the cost for more than 5 years now. So no, its not because of a loophole but to protect the value of the asset
We just out think ur and even if we get transfer ban we will still be good for a long time.
Its getting to a point where everytine i see a new player sign for Chelsea, i believe they arent very serious about their career
Sell 20 and buy 20 in every window. This is what actually happened in factories specially in fashion industries. New season new fashion 😂
Arsenal having a number of average players on high wages cripled them financially and led to Wengers dismissal. Chelsea have taken those bad habits to a new level. I don't believe these players contracts are weighted on first team appearances, as no agent would advise their client to sign. This is a house of cards that will collapse within 2 seasons
😅😅😅😅
CHELSEA FC
aka - TALENT FACTORY
Chelsea is prepared for next 2 centuries
Don't think it works like that😅
Prepared to be mid table
tell will self implode
With bang average players
😂
There's still 1.5 weeks of August left to go, Chels will be signing another 10 players yet
20 to be exact 😂😂
they should sign every single players in the PL so they will be champion？😂
Running a club through a spreadsheet versus building a coherent football squad. The funny thing is even on low wages a lot of these kids are way overpaid for what they are. Mudryk for instance will be happy to cash those checks for the next decade.
I’m confused. What bad state was Chelsea in exactly? They blamed Tuch for the first 3 months of the season after they won the Champions league as their rock bottom? What was exactly wrong besides coaching and/or an identity. They had world class players all over the pitch and the bench (hence winning the champions league 6 months prior to the firing). They decide to do a wholesale onverhual on all their players and bought a bunch of unproven kids on 8 year deals. The problem is the new owners because I’m sure if Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, none of this would be happening. I think most American owned clubs in the prem deal with the same issues and I won’t even go down that rabbit hole, but we all can assume why
Absolute madness at Chelsea
MADNESS always move the needle, good or bad
chelsea is changing the game again
At this point, i’ve concluded that Kahveh Solekhol is indeed a Chelsea Football Club Fan.😎😎
This is insane, in the world of football, anything can happen, no player deserves a contract over 5yrs, not even Ronaldmessidinho
If a 17 yr old Messi or Ronaldo wants a 10 year old deal I’d immediately say “shut up now and take my money” lest they regret, but apparently no such player wants that kind of a long deal because they know their worth can only go up. Makes one wonder why the likes of Mudryk sign bloody long-term deals
not even Peledona deserves that
Smart word
@@qianlihu1694if you’re comparing average everyday players to messi and ronaldo you’ve already lost the argument 😂
So by that logic they got 20 Messi's n 10 Ronaldo 10 Pele too .....right
It’s easy to make fun of Chelsea now, but you can’t ignore the amount of talent they have. If they get osimhen, they’ll just need some time to build chemistry.
That squad is bang average mate.
Yeah until January when the window opens again and they sign about 15 players 😂
Even in our banter phase we are bigger than 99% of ppls clubs hating 💙
The media keeps milking Chelsea stories bcos they have nothing else to talk about.
Everyone loves to watch a car crash ... Chelsea are the football equivalent.
CHELSEA FC
aka - TALENT FACTORY
You cannot justify this. We want clubs to generate their own players, and play their own players. We do not want the team who can spend the most wins all the trophies. Where is the loyalty now, where is fair play? Sir Bobby Robson signed 18 players for Ipswich in 13 years at the club, and Chelsea have signed 35 players in 2 seasons. It needs to stop.
Are you kidding ? For the last 20 years or so maybe more, the premier league and English club success has been built on foreign imports.
Christ where would these media outlets be without Chelsea. Constantly talking about them
Sky sports really sensationalising the Chelsea thing and recycling it because they don’t have anything. Enter to say
One thing to point out is Chelsea have the youngest squad in the league and Spurs have the second youngest, they are both about 3.3 years younger when compares to Brighton who are third on the list. If either club get it right, particularly Spurs they will be set up with exceptional talent for years.
lol Arsenal had the 2nd youngest squad 2 seasons ago, finished 2nd. Spuds and more Chelsea specifically screwing themselves so spectacularly is fun to witness because they have young players who aren’t incentivised to perform or grow, their whole career is paid for lol. They won’t be setup with exceptional talents, because they will never go to clubs like Chelsea and spurs.
Keep piling up on chelsea 💙
Are you serious they didn’t go in hard enough on them it’s mad
Yeh cos its a car crash waiting to happen mate
Mate as a Chelsea fan I’m embarrassed by the way our club is being run. And what’s worse is we still could get a points deduction. Tell me you are 100% sure a points deduction wouldn’t throw us into the battle that no one wants to mention and don’t say it’ll never happen cause Aston Villa said it wouldn’t, Newcastle said it wouldn’t and Leeds said it wouldn’t… how’s that go?
@@JamesAttwood-f3m clearly you don't listen , he said having long term contracts for players helps the team to comply with financial fair play and PSR rules .
Actually really need this Chelsea team to start performing so this can all just stop
That’s how long it’ll be before Chelsea win the prem again
Not possible till bohley is there
Means nothing. 191 divided by a squad of 45 elements means 4 years average. Without counting staff for the first team.
It's now becoming an OBSESSION,from the journalists of ENGLAND,on Chelsea details
whats with the background noise?! 2:05?
Chelsea…. Living rent-free in pundit’s heads.
People are talking too much like experts how Chelsea owners are doing their businesses while many of the people talking have no clue of their life business.
Clubs will be queuing up to sign the fourth choice players behind Jackson, Badiashile, Mudryck and co, pay a huge fee, and offer contracts matching Chelsea's 70k a week for 8 years. None of them will be 'doing a Bogarde' and will quite happily tear their contracts up to earn 5K a week over two years at Bristol Rovers 😂
I was thinking low contracts? They arnt low for any team not in the top 6
after each season a players transfers value drops as they have less on the contract if they're not playing the value is very little as they won't be playing for their countries if they can't even get on the bench it's throwing money down a drain
These guy don't have anything else to report other than Chelsea 😂😂
Circus is entertaining!
CHELSEA FC
aka - TALENT FACTORY
Still 115 City getting away with nothing.
Because there are none 😅
@@domingos_mthanks for providing some knowledge to uneducated lads.
@@domingos_m There are, the UEFA chief guaranteed that it's real and proven, but the FA are very careful with to treat anything involving investment from Arabs.
@@abhii7666 foreign glory hunter detected
How did a UEFA chiefe prove anythjng when hhe was slapped in court 😂 @@SongofIceandTea
They might have players on "relatively" low wages but they have 42 "first team players" of which a maximum of 25 can be registered to play in Premier League (provided 7 are homegrown). That means they have 17 players they will still have to pay but won't have any chance of playing for the club. Plus I they are still being linked with buying more players.
2:35 The crucial thing you’re forgetting there my friend, is that it’s all well and good saying they can be sold easier because they’re on lower wages- But the player still has to agree to go. If a player is happy with their money, and on a long contract, they’re under no obligation to go. You want Disasi to go, but he doesn’t wanna… so you have to pay him £20M to cancel his contract, or compensate his move, depending on what the other club is willing to offer him. Thats not exactly a brilliant situation to be in. Ask Man United if they love having their players in high paying long lasting contracts. There are players they’ve wanted to sell for 4 years and counting. And back to Chelsea- Disasi is one of the MID-TIER earners. You don’t even want to know what they’d have to pay Enzo to force sell him. I mean, it’s nearly £80M!
Yes, but joao felix raheem sterling, christopher nkunku, cole palmer, nikolas jakson, lukaku, Pedro neto, mykhaylo mudryck are all an big wages and are all promised important roles
It's madness but it could work
Read the title as 191 players? that would of been wild
This is the most constructive and objective explanation of the policy, makes sense now
Chelsea when taken over in 2022 had just won the champions league and had a world class manager. The squad was way better and had winners, so the club was taken over in a very good state. Now the club has gone back 10 years, yes theres plent of potential but that doesnt mean anything unless you have a manager that has a vision and stays there 3-5 years.
I agree with you 💯 as a chelsea fan I see the owners are doing a great job and in the future they will dominate the game and they will have a large selection of professional players that they can use for the first team or sell for a profit!!
When the owners spend over 5 billions, they have to do this so they can have a better return on the investment (ROI)
I think it’s a great idea to sign or renew contracts for less money but longer contracts. For example we (Arsenal) have trouble shifting some of our players due to the wages that they are on. As long as those contracts are within the rules then it’s all good.
Your understanding and unbiased analysis proved that you are a good analyst
Stockpiling as company assets that's relatively likely too increase or decrease according to the current market value
Great strategy! Seems to be working out great thus far
Some have a contract to their country while paying max tax and gets almost nothing in return
no it wont be a 60 player squad, it'll be around 437
Chukuemeka is on 115k wages. How are they going to shift him?
The concept of low wages with incentives only really works if a player plays to the structure of the incentive. By that I mean, if he really over performs the terms of the contract he'll get his incentive payments but he/his manager will then ask for a higher wage. That's where Chelsea are in trouble.
the best explanation i have heard. Because I was wondering if chelsea was builiding a NFL team.
Where the logic fails is long contracts for players who never or consistently play means their market value may dip significantly when you sell. So do you / can you sell them without incurring a significant loss during their contract?
Id say a lot of this is down to them having 41 players which will be slimmed down in the coming days.
So if those players are under perfoming, so how can you easily sell them?? Player like Mudryk now, how much you going to sell him??and where
Even the club Chelsea FC is way younger than that. 191 years 😂
She mentioned legends…. Connor and Raheem….. how did he not correct her on that point? Baffling 😂
Thank you very much 🎉🎉🎉
Problem i see is over the next few years the PL will be reducing the number of combined loans in and out a club can have to something like 6 players. The squad needs trimmed down to a managable size. You cant have 17 attacking first team players at a club. 😂
Sterling out!
A four year contract of £60,000 per week totals £12.5 million!!!
Typically average of £70,000 salary a week multiply by 191years 😂😂😂😂😂😂
£2,950.000 a week £11,750.000 a month or 141 mil a year on wages where 75% won't even play
Someone actually making logical deductions about chelsea , wow
He's a chelsea fan
Not logical.
5 Keepers, 6 Centre backs, 4 Full backs, 7 Central Midfielders, 7 Wide players and 5 Strikers. Most of em bang average. I haven't even included the U21's 😂
Boehley thinks its an NFL team. He still doesnt understand that football is different in Europe.
He has to get a 53 roster fam
Offense defense n special teams
Closer to baseball. You lock in a guy early so as wages inflate, yours are frozen on the long deal. Problem is how powerful premier league players, agents are and the options they have
Cheers to 191 years of winning 😊
This is a new model. It may or not work. Lets see how its goes. Its like a players supermarket
Chelsea contract - 191 years total is still greater than contract length of Arsenal + Liverpool + Ipswich town . Let it digest .
Does that matter 🧐
Only 6 more than liverpool arsenal and city combined
What are they paying for felx?
1.5 billion and the squad is worse than when Boehly arrived!
Madness!
191 years of bang average players
This people find new negatives about chelsea to keep themselves busy.....prem just started..all I'm hearing from the pundits are Chelsea's 50 players what about the topic that actually matters the 115 charges,the case,what we could expect...
It's a topic what needs discussing like you had an opinion on Forest when we signed 30+ signings when we got promoted
Chelsea’s strategy is to buy every player possible to stop them joining other clubs to prevent them from strengthening that’s not how it works! And the long contracts is to act as a deterrent from other clubs becoming interested in their players!
The long contracts is for Chelsea to comply with FFP. It's called amortization - you spread a players transfer fee over a longer period. E.g £50m on a 3 year contract = £16m per year.(FFP😡) But £50m on a 6 year contract is £8m yearly.(FFP😄)
OSHIMEN + PALMER + NKUNKU + NETO 🦍🥶🎈 Chelsea podría estar en el Top 4 la próxima temporada🔥🔵
Jörgensen.
Gusto. Fofana. Cotwill. Cucu
Caicedo. R.Lavia.
Nkunku 10
C.Palmer. Neto/Felix
Osimhen
Finally some sound and stellar analysis, free of BS and second rate commentators. Thank you so much!
For a club struggling to move on Lukaku who had years on his contract and wanted to leave, Chelsea are still handing out long contracts
with all that money we better use it for a better stadium
What he says from a business standpoint makes sense. Yes, a risk worth taking, but isn't that the case when buying a footballer in general? They will have a lower wage bill than all the top 6 clubs with longer contracts. The issue they have is no one buys players anymore when they have a long contract, they wait until they have 2 or 3 years left. However, because they bought many of these players for relatively cheap fees 30-40 mil, they will probably be able to recoup most of that money even if they don't do that well through a loan with an obligation to buy. The model is different and has its pros and cons. I think we need to judge Chelsea in a couple of years, not now.
Bad business. Why would you sign a player to a 7-year contract?
191 years: that's football heritage
Yes and they moan Chelsea dont have history 😂
Chelsea have absolutely no chance of getting rid of Sterling. 300k a week till 2027. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is coming close to matching that.
. Media too much concerned about chelsea 😂
It's alright saying we'll just sell them. If they aren't playing, their value is going to drop. A lot of teams are already trying to tighten the purse strings so potential buyers (teams who can match wages) will be limited.
Enzo was 100m and he is shite
Well what Enzo go to do what been explained.
Tony bombed the English language
@@MatThomas-il3dn Maybe you should try speaking and write my language and I'm sure Mat Thomas would bombed my language.
By the way professor how many languages to you speak?
Much better on the second attempt mummy and daddy will be so proud
Poundland declan rice
It is no wonder why none of them want to pas the ball for an easier goal and instead just shoot
At least bring pundits who know what they are talking about.
There's no way the total is 191 for the 21 players in the current premier league squad. This must be including the players out on loan, the 10-15 players who have been told they have no future at the club including reserve team and youth team players purchased over the last 3 years. Not every Chelsea player in premier league squad is on 7 year deals, but even if they were 7 x 21 = 147, plus 2 more for Palmer. =149. More SSN anti Chelsea bias. The fact Chelsea's overall wage budget is also impressive as it's LOWER than other clubs but their assets are protected. Locking down top players for 7 years on low wages with incentives means the players have to make Chelsea successful to either earn more money, earn a new contract or earn a transfer to leave. In Spain to protect themselves clubs lock down players on massively inflated minimum release clauses like 300-500 million to leave and then pay high wages, but now clubs like Barca are nearly bankrupt. Chelsea are trying to do the same thing that doesn't cost them massive wages or make their players unsellable because of massive release clauses. Is there nothing else news worth happening in the football world than Chelsea's contract approach for the last 3 years? Pretty sure other clubs will soon copy Chelsea and try this approach to long contracts on low wages instead of 300K a week on 5 year deals for players like Jason Sancho or Gabriel Jesus, when you could have Palmer or Neto for 120K a week over 7-9 years, and be more likely to receive a transfer fee for them instead of leaving on a free. Not sure if it's a better way to run a club, but we'll find out in 7 years time, but the plan is to be more financially stable over the long term, especially when they sell another 10 players.
Since when did stats like this begin to matter?
You guys should get something important to do with your lives
42 first team players? Did I hear that right?
Then......Ronaldo
Now.......Chelsea
Sky Sports News keep getting the contents 👏🏻👏🏻
that graphic looks like the state of oklahoma 😂
So, is it bothering you?
It's simple, 2 players out for every player signed, including Sterling
Sky sports signed a new calculator to figure this out.
They cant beat you if they dont have players.
We need 10 more players, these are not enough. 🙂
Amazing analysis this the truth
The new owner didn't meet Chelsea in a bad state 😤
They just need a quarter back and wide receiver to complete the team and play boehly's favourite formation of 553.
If you put a 5yr old in charge of a club, it would look very similar to Chelsea.
Why on earth would any player go to Chelsea
I get what that bloke is saying but that only works assuming even 8 players don’t work out. they got 20 players not working out. Also it’s not as easy as sell because they got low wages. other clubs know they have a Ton of players they need to get rid of so they are gonna be strong armed in the market and take huge losses that’ll affect FFP which they already struggle with
Wow only 60-65k a week. I hope they will be okay