Squad Status: 2024/25 Season

[Sleeping Dave]

58 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Well, whilst it IS working, whatever you want to think, and we don't breach PSR I'm quite happy.

What may or may not happen, time will tell but I'm not one to get annoyed at things that haven't happened and may never.

 

32 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Ugochukwu,  Washington, Angelo,  Casadei, Santos,  Fofana. 

That's 6 players right there that are all on 7 year contracts, low wages so a low book value. 

Pretty much  guaranteed to sell them all in the next 3 years, so the next accounting period for PSR. Pretty much guaranteed to make profit on all of them, as a group,  due to their low book value.

The ones we bought after FIFA changed the rules on amortisation of contracts, well they will all be used in the accounting period after this one and again, low wages, low book value so by the time it comes to sell them guaranteed profit.  We may not make money on an individual player but it's not about that It's all about 3 year accounting periods and getting through them. With numerous players on very low book values it's a pretty simple way of generating revenue. 

Its no longer about X amount of trasfer revenue coming in against X amount going out. 

It's working, whatever people want to say. It is working.

 

What about the other 6 remaining players? Also, it is so cute that you thinking we are guaranteed to make profit on players who can’t even lit up the Ligue 1. Who is going to pay more than we did and also pay them wages that are on par with what we are offering them? Certainly no French club. Certainly no Spanish club. Certainly no English club since they can’t lit up a league that are worse. 

Santos back to Brazil? Sure, at a pittance of what we paid. 

Anyhow, this is getting old. We will have to wait until the losses are realised. Given the length of their contracts that will most likely be a while. Casadei can be sold back to Italy for a loss sooner though. He probably has some stock over there still. 

[Lump Of Celery]

51 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Ugochukwu,  Washington, Angelo,  Casadei, Santos,  Fofana. 

That's 6 players right there that are all on 7 year contracts, low wages so a low book value. 

Pretty much  guaranteed to sell them all in the next 3 years, so the next accounting period for PSR. Pretty much guaranteed to make profit on all of them, as a group,  due to their low book value.

The ones we bought after FIFA changed the rules on amortisation of contracts, well they will all be used in the accounting period after this one and again, low wages, low book value so by the time it comes to sell them guaranteed profit.  We may not make money on an individual player but it's not about that It's all about 3 year accounting periods and getting through them. With numerous players on very low book values it's a pretty simple way of generating revenue. 

Its no longer about X amount of trasfer revenue coming in against X amount going out. 

It's working, whatever people want to say. It is working.

 

When you mean "guaranteed profit" I think you mean as in a profit on the books. However we would have sunk however many years of the previous amortisation. I can't imagine the owners missing away those kind of figures just to fiddle the accounting periods. This also may work in the first 3 years, but after that surely it catches up with itself once the amortisation builds up across so.many players. Realistically the only way around it is to sell bonafide academy players. 

[Lump Of Celery]

Sounds like this Argentine kid Anselmino is going to be signed and loaned straight back to Boca Juniors. I assume that is one loan spot gone already then

[Sleeping Dave]

7 minutes ago, Lump Of Celery said:

When you mean "guaranteed profit" I think you mean as in a profit on the books. However we would have sunk however many years of the previous amortisation. I can't imagine the owners missing away those kind of figures just to fiddle the accounting periods. This also may work in the first 3 years, but after that surely it catches up with itself once the amortisation builds up across so.many players. Realistically the only way around it is to sell bonafide academy players. 

Quite, happy to see that someone gets this. Amortisation costs are real. It’s not just a paper exercise. It is a burden and it impacts our ability to strengthen the club with real quality. What scares me is that this is a burden we will live with for a long time. Well into the 2030’s actually. 

Regarding your last point, yep. That’s already a practice and we will piss away real talent from the academy just so we can gamble on overrated foreign imports. 

Just genius! No really, they are so smart that they have outsmarted the whole world of football. The winners here are the clubs we are buying from. They are laughing all the way to the bank. 

€1.2bn spent on new players since they took over. It’s really hard to believe, but true nonetheless. 

[martin1905]

21 minutes ago, Lump Of Celery said:

When you mean "guaranteed profit" I think you mean as in a profit on the books. However we would have sunk however many years of the previous amortisation. I can't imagine the owners missing away those kind of figures just to fiddle the accounting periods. This also may work in the first 3 years, but after that surely it catches up with itself once the amortisation builds up across so.many players. Realistically the only way around it is to sell bonafide academy players. 

I think that is exactly what they are doing. I think the 6 players I have mentioned will be sold in this accounting period. All of them will have a low yearly book salary so by the time they are in their 3rd or 4th year we should comfortably get enough to pay of their remaining book value and everything on top is profit.

The players don't even need to go up in value for this to work. Kellyman is costing around £4m a year so after 3  years we will owe £8m on him. We sell him at a 'loss', say £12m and there's £4m profit for that accounting period. That's on a particularly bad purchase. Some players we will make a lot more, some may even turn out good enough to play for us, very difficult to lose. 

The key is have we breached PSR, which I've been told we haven't, hence the continuation of this. If we didn't breach for the last accounting period for the money we spent, we never will.

[Sleeping Dave]

16 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

I think that is exactly what they are doing. I think the 6 players I have mentioned will be sold in this accounting period. All of them will have a low yearly book salary so by the time they are in their 3rd or 4th year we should comfortably get enough to pay of their remaining book value and everything on top is profit.

The players don't even need to go up in value for this to work. Kellyman is costing around £4m a year so after 3  years we will owe £8m on him. We sell him at a 'loss', say £12m and there's £4m profit for that accounting period. That's on a particularly bad purchase. Some players we will make a lot more, some may even turn out good enough to play for us, very difficult to lose. 

The key is have we breached PSR, which I've been told we haven't, hence the continuation of this. If we didn't breach for the last accounting period for the money we spent, we never will.

But Martin, you are talking about “paper profits”. No accounting principle can turn a bad deal in real life into a good one on paper and then magically turn it into a good deal in the real world. The money we pay and receive are still real and a loss is still a loss.

Just because you amortise the cost over 7 years doesn’t mean the amortisation costs can be neglected. They have still been on our books. Like the poster above states, you can do this short term with a low number of players to balance the books from one year to another. But at this scale, for so many years? It’s like sweeping all the shit in your house under the rug. It’s still there. 

[martin1905]

6 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

But Martin, you are talking about “paper profits”. No accounting principle can turn a bad deal in real life into a good one on paper and then magically turn it into a good deal in the real world. The money we pay and receive are still real and a loss is still a loss.

Just because you amortise the cost over 7 years doesn’t mean the amortisation costs can be neglected. They have still been on our books. Like the poster above states, you can do this short term with a low number of players to balance the books from one year to another. But at this scale, for so many years? It’s like sweeping all the shit in your house under the rug. It’s still there. 

Oh, I get that Dave, it is paper profits but I think that is exactly what we are dealing with whilst the PSR rules are what they are.

As long as you can afford all the yearly amortisation it's literally all that matters and that's the way we are playing this game. We will make losses but I think we are buying groups of young players at a time,  on low yearly book values,  in readiness to sell them three years into their contract when the balance isn't that much so whilst overall we potentially make a loss on an individual transfer, for that accounting period we actually make profit, on paper.

 

[Thiago97]

This whole strategy instigating this level of debate is just sad to see to be honest. We are a big football club and we shouldn’t be reduced to even having to think or debate this nonsense.

Thats before you even get on to the morality and optics of the situation. The players are well paid for sure, but they are just being fudged around like pawns to make the whole strategy have any chance of working.

It’s just a horrible look and feel about the whole situation . I find it hard to believe that anyone can defend or enjoy our club being reduced to this tedious bollox. 
 

 

[Ham]

8 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

This whole strategy instigating this level of debate is just sad to see to be honest. We are a big football club and we shouldn’t be reduced to even having to think or debate this nonsense.

Thats before you even get on to the morality and optics of the situation. The players are well paid for sure, but they are just being fudged around like pawns to make the whole strategy have any chance of working.

It’s just a horrible look and feel about the whole situation . I find it hard to believe that anyone can defend or enjoy our club being reduced to this tedious bollox. 
 

 

To be fair, you'd hope the plan was to stop buying so many players once the balance is right and we're successful.  

Just the odd tweak with the best of the rest going to Strasbourg. 

[ROTG]

55 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Oh, I get that Dave, it is paper profits but I think that is exactly what we are dealing with whilst the PSR rules are what they are.

As long as you can afford all the yearly amortisation it's literally all that matters and that's the way we are playing this game. We will make losses but I think we are buying groups of young players at a time,  on low yearly book values,  in readiness to sell them three years into their contract when the balance isn't that much so whilst overall we potentially make a loss on an individual transfer, for that accounting period we actually make profit, on paper.

 

Problem is the club brought whilst the market was inflated and nobody foresaw how the FA would punish a team that broke the rules.  Hence why we are seeing clubs refusing to pay hyped prices for players.  January’s transfer was an example of clubs being frugal to keep within FSR
 

let’s be honest, who’s going to give the club 34m for a player like Madueke, who’s no more than a PL said player 

Edited July 26 by ROTG

[Mark Kelly]

56 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Problem is the club brought whilst the market was inflated and nobody foresaw how the FA would punish a team that broke the rules.  Hence why we are seeing clubs refusing to pay hyped prices for players.  January’s transfer was an example of clubs being frugal to keep within FSR
 

let’s be honest, who’s going to give the club 34m for a player like Madueke, who’s no more than a PL said player 

Don't disagree generally but do quite like Madueke myself 

[McCreadie]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

 let’s be honest, who’s going to give the club 34m for a player like Madueke?

Newcastle. And anything over £27m is “profit” in terms of PSR at this point. I’d keep him and see how he develops in “grown up” football under Maresca.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Don't disagree generally but do quite like Madueke myself 

So do I.  One of those players who'd have lots of assists but for our finishing. 

Almost always goes past his man when he tries. 

[xceleryx]

8 hours ago, Thiago97 said:

This whole strategy instigating this level of debate is just sad to see to be honest. We are a big football club and we shouldn’t be reduced to even having to think or debate this nonsense.

Thats before you even get on to the morality and optics of the situation. The players are well paid for sure, but they are just being fudged around like pawns to make the whole strategy have any chance of working.

It’s just a horrible look and feel about the whole situation . I find it hard to believe that anyone can defend or enjoy our club being reduced to this tedious bollox. 

This is in part the result of the way football transfer costs have increased. The talent pool at the top has shrunk, it's then raised the cost of the "next best", and so you see clubs forking out £40m-£50m+ on mid tier players and it's considered acceptable. If a team wants those upper tier players then prices end up skyrocketing as you get the same elite clubs trying to battle for signatures. Then you need to factor in the wages established talent usually demands.

It's become hard and harder to find value in the market for established ready to go players, so the next best thing is buying these players younger and hopefully, albeit it isn't always the case, at cheaper price points and lower wage demands. If they don't pan out there's greater ability to move these players on unlikely trying to shift your Drinkwaters, Lukaku's, Ziyech's, etc that take home ridiculous wages few clubs can afford let alone are willing to match. 

[ROTG]

9 hours ago, McCreadie said:

Newcastle. And anything over £27m is “profit” in terms of PSR at this point. I’d keep him and see how he develops in “grown up” football under Maresca.

People need to keep the Amortization equation out of the discussion.

If the club were paying top draw players who were in their late 20's then it more than likely Automatization comes into the equation of the resale value of the player. However the club have gone down the route of players for development, therefore on would expect the players resale value to increase without factoring in Automatization 

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, xceleryx said:

This is in part the result of the way football transfer costs have increased. The talent pool at the top has shrunk, it's then raised the cost of the "next best", and so you see clubs forking out £40m-£50m+ on mid tier players and it's considered acceptable. If a team wants those upper tier players then prices end up skyrocketing as you get the same elite clubs trying to battle for signatures. Then you need to factor in the wages established talent usually demands.

Obviously you have not been paying too much attention to PSR and how it changing the transfer market?

[Bison]

15 hours ago, martin1905 said:

I think that is exactly what they are doing. I think the 6 players I have mentioned will be sold in this accounting period. All of them will have a low yearly book salary so by the time they are in their 3rd or 4th year we should comfortably get enough to pay of their remaining book value and everything on top is profit.

The players don't even need to go up in value for this to work. Kellyman is costing around £4m a year so after 3  years we will owe £8m on him. We sell him at a 'loss', say £12m and there's £4m profit for that accounting period. That's on a particularly bad purchase. Some players we will make a lot more, some may even turn out good enough to play for us, very difficult to lose. 

The key is have we breached PSR, which I've been told we haven't, hence the continuation of this. If we didn't breach for the last accounting period for the money we spent, we never will.

Because they sold the hotel, car park and whatever else to other parts of the business. Without that chicanery they would have breached PSR. How is that smart business and sustainable? 

[Thiago97]

7 hours ago, xceleryx said:

This is in part the result of the way football transfer costs have increased. The talent pool at the top has shrunk, it's then raised the cost of the "next best", and so you see clubs forking out £40m-£50m+ on mid tier players and it's considered acceptable. If a team wants those upper tier players then prices end up skyrocketing as you get the same elite clubs trying to battle for signatures. Then you need to factor in the wages established talent usually demands.

It's become hard and harder to find value in the market for established ready to go players, so the next best thing is buying these players younger and hopefully, albeit it isn't always the case, at cheaper price points and lower wage demands. If they don't pan out there's greater ability to move these players on unlikely trying to shift your Drinkwaters, Lukaku's, Ziyech's, etc that take home ridiculous wages few clubs can afford let alone are willing to match. 

I think the most prevalent three words to Chelsea in your post is lower wage demands.

It only works if all the top standing 30 clubs in Europe are applying the same metrics. Whilst there might be some pointers out there that suggest our competitors have one eye on this, we all know that at some point a number of these clubs will break rank when the right player comes along.

This ownership model has yet to show (other than its first 1-2 statement signings in KK , Sterling and James contract (if that was their era)) that they are prepared to pay top wages for top level players. Unless this changes at some point in the future, the reality is we become also rans, a bit like RB Leipzeig have become also rans , since they have been established as a top5 club in Germany.

Lower wages is a huge driver in this whole strategy. We will become also ran's unless it changes, because our competitors will not all continue to work this way, they will go and sign players we won't and be prepared to pay the wages. Then we will also likely lose top players, once their heads are turned by huge wages on offer. It becomes very difficult for us to match those wages, which breaks the structure we are working within.

The most obvious example will be Cole Palmer. If he has another season like last season, clubs are going to be eyeing him up and prepared to pay him 250k per week. Sure, we might make £100m profit on the deal, but we will be forever standing still , cos you will struggle to replace him (like RB Leipzeig have found) and we will be forever chasing our tail.

The same goes for Paez and the Brazilian lad, if they turn out to be as good as many believe. We could make £400 million on those three deals, but a lot of things need to go right for that to happen. 

We are heading for a future of a perennial nearly team. Probably winning some cups along the way, but likely never having enough to cement anything better, due to this constant churn on players in/out sold for profit.

If they go out and sign a top player and pay him 200k per week ( a Nico Williams, a genuine top level keeper/striker who is ready now) Then what I have written here is bollox, but until they do that, its how I envisage the future.

 

[Morgs]

On 23/07/2024 at 11:04, paulw66 said:

We currently have Badiashile, Colwill, Disasi, Tosin and Fofana. 5 centre backs is arguably too much, depending on fitness.

We wont be buying a replacement at all. 

I must be missing something. TC is a decent player, that's it. Any better and he'd have walked into the England squad that included Lewis Dunk. 

The real proof in the pudding is what level of team comes knocking. 

The Club are spending 20m (two thirds of the reported Chalobah fee) on a 19 year old Argentine central defender, so says Fabrizio Romano. 

[Sleeping Dave]

41 minutes ago, Morgs said:

The Club are spending 20m (two thirds of the reported Chalobah fee) on a 19 year old Argentine central defender, so says Fabrizio Romano. 

Who will also command one of the loan spots available. So we are down to five now. Santos and Wiley to Strasbourg. That’s three left. 

Lots of players will be left at Cobham playing U21 football. Great planning for increasing the value of those players huh! After a season in the U21s we are apparently guaranteed to make a profit on them 😂😂😂

[McCreadie]

10 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Who will also command one of the loan spots available. So we are down to five now. Santos and Wiley to Strasbourg. That’s three left.  

I expect the mechanics of this deal will mean that a loan place does not get used up

[Ham]

20 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

I expect the mechanics of this deal will mean that a loan place does not get used up

He's going straight back to Boca. 

[Bison]

I wonder how many of these signings are players meant for Strasbourg but for accounting purposes they can't sign them directly.

I know many here have swallowed the idea that there is a masterplan but surely some of you are starting to doubt any of this makes any sense. Player trading on this scale is completely unnecessary. 

[Sleeping Dave]

5 minutes ago, Bison said:

I wonder how many of these signings are players meant for Strasbourg but for accounting purposes they can't sign them directly.

I know many here have swallowed the idea that there is a masterplan but surely some of you are starting to doubt any of this makes any sense. Player trading on this scale is completely unnecessary. 

They can only loan three. So… One would hope no more than three. 

Caleb Wiley is a ridiculous signing. Surely he must be a Strasbourg player for the foreseeable. 

[Bison]

13 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

They can only loan three. So… One would hope no more than three. 

Caleb Wiley is a ridiculous signing. Surely he must be a Strasbourg player for the foreseeable. 

Not just him to be honest. There are so many I've genuinely lost count. I thought Veiga was one but seemingly not. 

Edited July 27 by Bison