Deadline Day: Bring Out The Transfer Gimp!

Giggsy11 · 17-07-2012 07:45AM

Playboy wrote: »

Chelsea are going to be fine wrt FFP because UEFA aren't going to implement it properly. If they did implement it then not punishing Chelsea and City would be ludicrous. It's supposed to be about having a sustainable business model and neither of those clubs do or will have for quite a while. Chelsea were in huge debt before they splurged on Luiz, Mata, Lukaku, Cahill and AvB. The fact they have gone out and shot their load again is a joke. £25m for Ganso and £30m+ for Hazard = equals all of CL money gone and then some... Then you have to factor in Marin and whoever else they bought or are going to buy this summer. All this for a club which is already in £140m ish debt with a massive wage bill! Roman must know something we dont because for a club who needs to take out ads in the paper to try and sell tickets to its games they certainly dont seem to be worried about FFP. Either that or FFP is a pile of ****e which isn't going make any difference. In London Chelsea will always be a small club .. West Ham or Fulham with Money. They might have some fans around the world who are attracted to the success but I imagine they will disappear along with Roman and his millions and Chelsea will return to their rightful place in the football hierarchy

If I'm not wrong it doesn't work like that.

For example: –

Guardian wrote:

the cost of transfers spread over the course of a contract – increased by £2.1m, partly as a result of the splurge on Fernando Torres and David Luiz in January 2011

50 Million paid for Torres won't be incluced in just one financial report, it will be divided by number of years on contract (Or something like that).

From Wiki, as I can't open other sites (now)

As transfer fee was considered as a purchase of a capital, the real effect of transfer fee was the amortization of the transfer fee, which is proportionally to the contract length. For example, Torres's £50 million transfer fee had to be amortized by about £9 million a season, which in the 2010–11 season amounted to only £4.5 million (due to half season). The club may lower the expense of amortization by selling players and extending the player contract

Playboy · 17-07-2012 08:20AM

Giggsy11 wrote: »

If I'm not wrong it doesn't work like that.

For example: –

Guardian wrote:

the cost of transfers spread over the course of a contract – increased by £2.1m, partly as a result of the splurge on Fernando Torres and David Luiz in January 2011

50 Million paid for Torres won't be incluced in just one financial report, it will be divided by number of years on contract (Or something like that).

From Wiki, as I can't open other sites (now)

As transfer fee was considered as a purchase of a capital, the real effect of transfer fee was the amortization of the transfer fee, which is proportionally to the contract length. For example, Torres's £50 million transfer fee had to be amortized by about £9 million a season, which in the 2010–11 season amounted to only £4.5 million (due to half season). The club may lower the expense of amortization by selling players and extending the player contract

Well if they spend similar sums (£50m-£70m) every season then it doesn't really matter. The club is still spending far more money than it earns. Maybe not in the same league as City and PSG at the moment but clubs are paying inflated fees and wages for players in this country due to the Chelsea business model. They were on the verge of bankruptcy before Roman arrived to save the day and he has been spending fortunes every season since.

Look I'm not particularly fond of maintaining the status quo either. For too long a small number of clubs have dominated this league and European football in general. The only way it seems to break through that monopoly is to find a billionaire sugar daddy. But for me that is a false kid of success.... Any club can win things if enough money is pumped in so what's the point. UEFA or FIFA need to find some way of levelling the playing field and FFP isn't it... It's just a return to the Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool dominated days as they has the biggest fan base. UEFA need to find a way to harmonise player income... Some type of wage cap but taking into account the various tax structures of different countries. They also need to produce a financial model which will determine a players worth to a club (similar to tribunal) and players should be held to the full term of their contracts without the club worrying that they are going to lose the player for free. Players have way too much power.. They are a privileged few who are lucky enough to get paid fortunes to do what they love and they should have some loyalty to clubs and adapt to a new model that is best for football in general and not just their wallets

greendom · 17-07-2012 08:22AM

Reports in France are saying that Thorgan Hazard currently with L2 side Lens is going to join his brother at Chelsea.

Giggsy11 · 17-07-2012 08:24AM

Playboy wrote: »

Well if they spend similar sums (£50m-£70m) every season then it doesn't really matter. The club is still spending far more money than it earns. Maybe not in the same league as City and PSG at the moment but clubs are paying inflated fees and wages for players in this country due to the Chelsea business model. They were on the verge of bankruptcy before Roman arrived to save the day and he has been spending fortunes every season since.

I'm not saying anything before the Roman take over or how club should be run, just pointing out how transfer fee are calculated and Chelsea's accounts are not that bad at all.

LuckyLloyd · 17-07-2012 09:20AM

Spurs fan ITT: "they need to keep changing the rules until Spurs can win the league"

Right on.

Playboy · 17-07-2012 09:31AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Spurs fan ITT: "they need to keep changing the rules until Spurs can win the league"

Right on.

Came closer than Chelsea to doing it last season without a sugar daddy. Doesn't say much for Chelsea now does it

racso1975 · 17-07-2012 09:35AM

Playboy wrote: »

Came closer than Chelsea to doing it last season without a sugar daddy. Doesn't say much for Chelsea now does it

Except that they won the champions league

LuckyLloyd · 17-07-2012 09:35AM

Playboy wrote: »

Came closer than Chelsea to doing it last season without a sugar daddy. Doesn't say much for Chelsea now does it

You are an ant on the sole of Chelsea's shoe in relative terms for approaching 20 years now. Don't get all puffy chested over three seasons of improved league form.

Sgt Pepper 64 · 17-07-2012 09:36AM

Playboy wrote: »

Came closer than Chelsea to doing it last season without a sugar daddy. Doesn't say much for Chelsea now does it

Look sunshine, you undermine any hope of a reasonable argument by saying we have signed GANSO!
We are close to signing OSCAR. GANSO is a totally different player!

Now kindly stop spoiling this thread called "Summer Shopping etc" and open a new one called " I detest thee Chelsea and thy Sugar Daddy, who dares to spend money" or re=open one of the many existing FPP rules threads, cos I aint gonna feed you no more!

Thank you and GOOD NIGHT :P

Playboy · 17-07-2012 09:48AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

Came closer than Chelsea to doing it last season without a sugar daddy. Doesn't say much for Chelsea now does it

You are an ant on the sole of Chelsea's shoe in relative terms for approaching 20 years now. Don't get all puffy chested over three seasons of improved league form.

Yea yes you go on believing that lol! When was it you came up from the second division again.. 89 was it?

Playboy · 17-07-2012 09:50AM

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

Came closer than Chelsea to doing it last season without a sugar daddy. Doesn't say much for Chelsea now does it

Look sunshine, you undermine any hope of a reasonable argument by saying we have signed GANSO!
We are close to signing OSCAR. GANSO is a totally different player!

Now kindly stop spoiling this thread called "Summer Shopping etc" and open a new one called " I detest thee Chelsea and thy Sugar Daddy, who dares to spend money" or re=open one of the many existing FPP rules threads, cos I aint gonna feed you no more!

Thank you and GOOD NIGHT :P

Hi Mr. Caps Lock! Yes I made an error with a player name therefore everything I said must be wiped from the records as that was the whole crux of my argument.

LuckyLloyd · 17-07-2012 10:00AM

Playboy wrote: »

Yea yes you go on believing that lol! When was it you came up from the second division again.. 89 was it?

I'm a Liverpool fan. But I can appreciate how successful Chelsea have been over the past 15 or so years:

3 League Titles
1 European Cup
1 European Cup Winners Cup
6 FA Cups
3 League Cups

That's big dog stuff. What have Spurs achieved in the same period? Blabber on over two fourth place finishes and some attacking football, that makes up for all the medals ye don't win sure.

Playboy · 17-07-2012 10:08AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

Yea yes you go on believing that lol! When was it you came up from the second division again.. 89 was it?

I'm a Liverpool fan. But I can appreciate how successful Chelsea have been over the past 15 or so years:

3 League Titles
1 European Cup
1 European Cup Winners Cup
6 FA Cups
3 League Cups

That's big dog stuff. What have Spurs achieved in the same period? Blabber on over two fourth place finishes and some attacking football, that makes up for all the medals ye don't win sure.

Lol are you serious? It's amazing they haven't won more with the cash Roman has thrown at them!? Give me a break.. Doncaster Rovers would be Champions of Europe with the same budget.

And tbh .. I'd rather watch entertaining football every day of the week rather than the crap Chelsea served up in the latter stages of the CL this season. If there was an embarrassing way to win a trophy then that was it. Horrible horrible anti football that was painful to watch.

LuckyLloyd · 17-07-2012 10:11AM

Playboy wrote: »

Lol are you serious? It's amazing they haven't won more with the cash Roman has thrown at them!? Give me a break.. Doncaster Rovers would be Champions of Europe with the same budget.

And tbh .. I'd rather watch entertaining football every day of the week rather than the crap Chelsea served up in the latter stages of the CL this season. If there was an embarrassing way to win a trophy then that was it. Horrible horrible anti football that was painful to watch.

Spurs fan ITT: "I would rather we lose nobly than win"

gosplan · 17-07-2012 10:13AM

Playboy wrote: »

Well if they spend similar sums (£50m-£70m) every season then it doesn't really matter. The club is still spending far more money than it earns. Maybe not in the same league as City and PSG at the moment but clubs are paying inflated fees and wages for players in this country due to the Chelsea business model. They were on the verge of bankruptcy before Roman arrived to save the day and he has been spending fortunes every season since.

Look I'm not particularly fond of maintaining the status quo either. For too long a small number of clubs have dominated this league and European football in general. The only way it seems to break through that monopoly is to find a billionaire sugar daddy. But for me that is a false kid of success.... Any club can win things if enough money is pumped in so what's the point. UEFA or FIFA need to find some way of levelling the playing field and FFP isn't it... It's just a return to the Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool dominated days as they has the biggest fan base. UEFA need to find a way to harmonise player income... Some type of wage cap but taking into account the various tax structures of different countries. They also need to produce a financial model which will determine a players worth to a club (similar to tribunal) and players should be held to the full term of their contracts without the club worrying that they are going to lose the player for free. Players have way too much power.. They are a privileged few who are lucky enough to get paid fortunes to do what they love and they should have some loyalty to clubs and adapt to a new model that is best for football in general and not just their wallets

Agree with your concerns but it'll be a good thing IMO.

Everton, Blackburn, Leeds, Newcastle all made the CL or qualifying before City and Chelsea came along.

Tht's not to say they will again anytime soon and there are ways around it like City's 400 million sponsorship deal. But even that's over ten years so they've an extra 40 million per year to lose, which is a lot better then the 190 million they blew last year.

It may be a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted but it's a step in the right direction.

I think the main thing we'll see is the top clubs won't just hoover up all the good players as they do now. Clubs will obviously be operating as closely to the loss limit as possible so if City want to sign, say Rooney and pay him 250K per week - they're going to have to trim that money of their wage bill elsewhere and come up with the transfer fee.

Sgt Pepper 64 · 17-07-2012 10:15AM

I've just signed "THE IGNORE BUTTON"

Best signing I will make this Summer I reckon

Back on topic please, I come hear for the transfers, not for a club assassination

gosplan · 17-07-2012 10:22AM

Playboy wrote: »

If there was an embarrassing way to win a trophy then that was it. Horrible horrible anti football that was painful to watch.

It wasn't embarassing, defending is half the game. If Bayern and Barca couldn't put away their chances ... including penalties, then Chelsea are hardly to blame.

I'd agrue that Chelsea are a limited squad, particularly when it comes to attacking. On paper they're no match for Barca or Bayern ... but they all, with the notable exception of Terry (which makes the shinguards trophy thing even worse), played out of their skins and that makes them as worthy winners as anyone. I've never seen players like Ivanovic, Mikel, Cole, Krusty, Ramieres put in performances like that on the way to the trophy.

They went with a plan to win it, many of them played as well as they possibly could and they won it.

Sgt Pepper 64 · 17-07-2012 10:23AM

gosplan wrote: »

It wasn't embarassing, defending is half the game. If Bayern and Barca couldn't put away their chances ... including penalties, then Chelsea are hardly to blame.

I'd agrue that Chelsea are a limited squad, particularly when it comes to attacking. On paper they're no match for Barca or Bayern ... but they all, with the notable exception of Terry (which makes the shinguards trophy thing even worse), played out of their skins and that makes them as worthy winners as anyone. I've never seen players like Ivanovic, Mikel, Cole, Krusty, Ramieres put in performances like that on the way to the trophy.

They went with a plan to win it, many of them played as well as they possibly could and they won it.

And now you can see them putting together an attacking squad. A young squad in an mini splurge that will do them for years to come, bar some tinkering

Playboy · 17-07-2012 10:25AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

Lol are you serious? It's amazing they haven't won more with the cash Roman has thrown at them!? Give me a break.. Doncaster Rovers would be Champions of Europe with the same budget.

And tbh .. I'd rather watch entertaining football every day of the week rather than the crap Chelsea served up in the latter stages of the CL this season. If there was an embarrassing way to win a trophy then that was it. Horrible horrible anti football that was painful to watch.

Spurs fan ITT: "I would rather we lose nobly than win"

Yup I would. I follow football because it's entertaining not because I want the club I follow to win at any cost.

gosplan · 17-07-2012 10:36AM

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

And now you can see them putting together an attacking squad. A young squad in an mini splurge that will do them for years to come, bar some tinkering

It's kind of the obvious thing to do no?

I mean it's their last chance to do it.

Sgt Pepper 64 · 17-07-2012 11:19AM

Futbol_Mercado ‏@Futbol_Mercado
El Chelsea ofrece 12 millones de euros por el delantero español del Barcelona, Gerard Deulofeu.

Mercado saying we offering 12 million euros for Deulofeu! That would be crazy if true, as they surely see him a long term replacement for Villa. If this is true, lets hope there is no buy-back clause nonsense!

Jax Teller · 17-07-2012 11:27AM

Apparently Chelsea are to sign Eden Hazard's little brother Thorgan

Eden Hazard's little brother is set to follow him to Chelsea.
Thorgan Hazard, 19, has reportedly told Lens he wants to move to London, leaving the clubs to negotiate a fee.

The French club would be reluctant sellers, but Hazard has just a year left on his contract and they need funds to complete three deals they have lined up, according to L'Equipe.

the Belgium Under 19 international made his breakthrough in Ligue 1 last season and plays in similar positions to Eden - on the flanks or in the hole.

Eden, who joined Chelsea from Lille for £32million this summer, has previously described Thorgan as having more talent than him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2174736/Chelsea-set-sign-Thorgan-Hazard-Lens--brother-Eden-Hazard.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Kess73 · 17-07-2012 11:36AM

Coletrickle88 wrote: »

Apparently Chelsea are to sign Eden Hazard's little brother Thorgan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2174736/Chelsea-set-sign-Thorgan-Hazard-Lens--brother-Eden-Hazard.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Would be a smart move by Chelsea as he looks a very talented young player.

GavRedKing · 17-07-2012 11:44AM

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Futbol_Mercado ‏@Futbol_Mercado
El Chelsea ofrece 12 millones de euros por el delantero español del Barcelona, Gerard Deulofeu.

Mercado saying we offering 12 million euros for Deulofeu! That would be crazy if true, as they surely see him a long term replacement for Villa. If this is true, lets hope there is no buy-back clause nonsense!

I jsut posted about him in the Chelsea thread a few minutes ago before I seen this rumour.

He would be cracking palyer if we could get him.

GavRedKing · 17-07-2012 11:48AM

Playboy wrote: »

Lol are you serious? It's amazing they haven't won more with the cash Roman has thrown at them!? Give me a break.. Doncaster Rovers would be Champions of Europe with the same budget.

Ha. Brillant.

And tbh .. I'd rather watch entertaining football every day of the week rather than the crap Chelsea served up in the latter stages of the CL this season. If there was an embarrassing way to win a trophy then that was it. Horrible horrible anti football that was painful to watch.

Sure you would rather watch entertaining football and win nothing.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnM9GPljCh8NzeRRrnHV2y1-2sgMVXRGxzqqCApZyxGSHjn6rI

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnM9GPljCh8NzeRRrnHV2y1-2sgMVXRGxzqqCApZyxGSHjn6rI

Playboy · 17-07-2012 01:30PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

Lol are you serious? It's amazing they haven't won more with the cash Roman has thrown at them!? Give me a break.. Doncaster Rovers would be Champions of Europe with the same budget.

Ha. Brillant.

And tbh .. I'd rather watch entertaining football every day of the week rather than the crap Chelsea served up in the latter stages of the CL this season. If there was an embarrassing way to win a trophy then that was it. Horrible horrible anti football that was painful to watch.

Sure you would rather watch entertaining football and win nothing.

Ask an Arsenal fan if they would prefer to watch George Graham football and win trophies or watch a Wegner team not win trophies. There would be a pretty even split imo... Don't see why it's such an alien concept. Isn't Roman spending a fortune to try and turn his team into an attractive footballing side?

Playboy · 17-07-2012 01:31PM

Double post

iregk · 17-07-2012 01:38PM

Playboy wrote:

Yea yes you go on believing that lol! When was it you came up from the second division again.. 89 was it?

Playboy wrote:

Came closer than Chelsea to doing it last season without a sugar daddy. Doesn't say much for Chelsea now does it

Playboy wrote:

Lol are you serious? It's amazing they haven't won more with the cash Roman has thrown at them!? Give me a break.. Doncaster Rovers would be Champions of Europe with the same budget.

Brilliant stuff this. Only a Spurs fan!

OK yes Chelsea came up from the 2nd division in '89 so lets look at the success from then to just prior to Romans arrival. Before the money is what we are saying. A time when Spurs had a much higher budget than Chelsea.

Spurs:
FA Cup 1
League Cup 1

Chelsea:
FA Cup 2
League Cup 1
UEFA Cup Winners Cup 1
UEFA Super Cup 1
Full Members Cup 1
Community Sheild 1

Now considering you match success to budget so closely as you're last two quotes will confirm, lets look at a comparable budget to Spurs for the past 10 years shall we.

Spurs budget 02-12: 324m
Man U budget 02-12: 347m

Pretty similar yes? So how has this translated to on the field:

Man U:
League 5
FA Cup 1
League Cup 3
Shield 5
European Cup 1
Club World Cup 1

Spurs:
League Cup 1

As Lloyd said, nothing but an ant on the shoe of Chelsea or United, even before Roman arrived!

Dempsey · 17-07-2012 01:48PM

Spurs budget 02-12: 324m
Man U budget 02-12: 347m

Is that just wages or transfer fees?

iregk · 17-07-2012 01:50PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Is that just wages or transfer fees?

Transfer fee's paid. Too awkward to do wages as palyers contracts can fluctuate yearly.

Deadline Day: Bring Out The Transfer Gimp!

Comments