Transfer Talk Topic

[thevelourfog]

4 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

Revenue Streams and Cost Management

1. Player Development and Transfer Profits

Clearlake’s strategy involves acquiring young talent and developing them through regular playing time and exposure, primarily at Strasbourg. This model focuses on:

• Low Initial Costs: Young players typically have lower transfer fees and wages compared to established stars.
• High Potential Resale Value: Successfully developed players can be sold for significant profits. For example, Chelsea has made substantial profits in recent years from selling academy graduates like Tammy Abraham (£34 million to Roma) and Fikayo Tomori (£25 million to AC Milan) (Archysport) (Football Business ).

Example Clubs: Borussia Dortmund and RB Leipzig have successfully implemented similar strategies, consistently selling developed players for high transfer fees without always competing for top league positions (Bundesliga) (DW).

2. Matchday Revenue

While performance impacts matchday revenue, expansion plans for Stamford Bridge could substantially boost income regardless of league position. Increasing stadium capacity from around 42,000 to 60,000 can significantly enhance matchday revenue:

• Current Limitation: Stamford Bridge’s smaller capacity limits matchday revenue compared to clubs like Manchester United and Arsenal with larger stadiums (The Price of Football).
• Expansion Potential: Increasing capacity can generate additional revenue through ticket sales, hospitality, and stadium naming rights.

Example Clubs: Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium has significantly boosted their matchday revenue, allowing them to remain profitable despite not consistently finishing in the top four (SQaF).

3. Commercial Revenue and Global Branding

Clearlake’s strategy emphasizes leveraging Chelsea’s global brand to secure lucrative sponsorships and commercial deals, independent of consistent top-tier performance:

• Brand Value: Chelsea’s established brand and global following provide opportunities for significant commercial revenue through merchandise sales, sponsorships, and digital engagement.
• Market Expansion: Targeting international markets and enhancing digital presence can further increase revenue streams.

Example Clubs: Manchester United remains one of the highest-earning clubs globally due to its commercial strength, despite fluctuating league performances (Deloitte United States).

Financial Sustainability and Compliance with FFP

Clearlake aims to ensure financial sustainability and compliance with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations by:

• Lower Wage Bills: Investing in young players with lower wage demands reduces the overall wage bill, increasing financial flexibility.
• Reduced Reliance on Debt: By focusing on profitability and sustainable growth, Clearlake reduces the financial risk associated with high debt levels seen during Abramovich’s tenure (Football Benchmark) (Archysport).

Example Clubs: Leicester City and Sevilla have shown that prudent financial management and strategic player sales can maintain financial health without the need for continuous top-four finishes (SQaF).

Conclusion

Clearlake Capital’s strategy does not necessarily depend on Chelsea consistently achieving top-tier finishes to be profitable. By focusing on developing young talent, increasing matchday revenue through stadium expansion, and leveraging global commercial opportunities, Chelsea can generate substantial profits. This approach contrasts with the Abramovich era, which relied heavily on high-cost player acquisitions and on-field success.

While midtable finishes might reduce certain revenue streams, the combined benefits of player sales, expanded matchday income, and robust commercial strategies can sustain profitability. Therefore, Clearlake’s approach can indeed be financially successful without the club needing to win trophies consistently.

References

• Football Transfers
• Archysport
• Deloitte’s Annual Review of Football Finance
• Price of Football
• Bundesliga - RB Leipzig
• DW - RB Leipzig

Who wrote this? I don't want to be disrespectful if it was you, but it has at least two gobsmackingly laugh out loud moments. 

"Clearlake’s strategy emphasizes leveraging Chelsea’s global brand to secure lucrative sponsorships and commercial deals, independent of consistent top-tier performance" ... Yeah, they're on course to make a killing through sponsorship, the potential sponsors are beating down the door. Maybe that's the problem, too may options to chose from. And who could forget Leicester City's "prudent financial management"? I think Leicester City will be themselves hoping the Premier League forgets everything about how it manages its finances.

Sometimes, if not all the time, it's more useful to understand what is going on by actually looking at it rather than reading what some vested interest has written about it. How often these clods feel the need to brief on what their strategy is should tell us all we need to know about it.

 

 

[Max Fowler]

5 minutes ago, Ham said:

Someone's discovered Chat GPT.

I'm not sure I see much difference between those suggestions and the actual plan that's in place. 

Summary of Key Differences

1. Youth-to-Experience Ratio:

   • Current Model: 95% youth signings, 5% experience.
   • Alternative Plan: 60-70% youth signings, 30-40% experience.

2. Wage Policy:

   • Current Model: Strict £150,000 per week wage cap for all new signings.
   • Alternative Plan: Flexible wage cap with exceptions for key experienced players.

3. Player Development:

   • Current Model: Heavy reliance on young players’ development and subsequent sales for profitability.
   • Alternative Plan: Combines development of young players with the stability and immediate benefits of purchasing experienced players.

4. Financial Focus:

   • Current Model: Primarily focused on long-term financial sustainability through low-cost acquisitions and high-margin sales.
   • Alternative Plan: Balances financial sustainability with the need to maintain competitive on-field performance to drive revenues and maintain fan satisfaction.

5. Mentorship and Leadership:

   • Current Model: Limited scope for mentorship due to fewer experienced players.
   • Alternative Plan: Ensures a core of experienced players are present to guide and mentor young talents, crucial for their growth and market value enhancement.

[Max Fowler]

8 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Who wrote this? I don't want to be disrespectful if it was you, but it has at least two gobsmackingly laugh out loud moments. 

"Clearlake’s strategy emphasizes leveraging Chelsea’s global brand to secure lucrative sponsorships and commercial deals, independent of consistent top-tier performance" ... Yeah, they're on course to make a killing through sponsorship, the potential sponsors are beating down the door. Maybe that's the problem, too may options to chose from. And who could forget Leicester City's "prudent financial management"? I think Leicester City will be themselves hoping the Premier League forgets everything about how it manages its finances.

AI generated. Fair point about Leicester. We are clearly leveraging sponsorship opportunities though, see everything we have done in the stadium from Boehly's new film to the bedroom in the stadium etc.

[My Blood Is Blue]

4 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

AI generated. Fair point about Leicester. We are clearly leveraging sponsorship opportunities though, see everything we have done in the stadium from Boehly's new film to the bedroom in the stadium etc.

At this point, I’ll step away from the discussion.

[thevelourfog]

2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

AI generated. Fair point about Leicester. We are clearly leveraging sponsorship opportunities though, see everything we have done in the stadium from Boehly's new film to the bedroom in the stadium etc.

That makes sense, because it reflected entirely what Clearlake consistently say and have written, and is removed to the point of delusion from the reality of what they are doing. Boehly using Chelsea as a vehicle to promote another venture he has involvement with is precisely evidence that we're struggling to attract sponsorship and have spots to fill, not of "leveraging opportunities". It's shuffling money between bank accounts, not having new money coming into any of them. 

[Max Fowler]

3 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

At this point, I’ll step away from the discussion.

I mean I literally don't have the energy or time to generate enough answers to these whataboutisms Sam, so this is the new and latest whataboutism I see. The goalposts will always be moved.

Again, would be more fun if you engaged in, the arguments 🙂

[Mark Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

AI generated. Fair point about Leicester. We are clearly leveraging sponsorship opportunities though, see everything we have done in the stadium from Boehly's new film to the bedroom in the stadium etc.

14 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Summary of Key Differences

1. Youth-to-Experience Ratio:

   • Current Model: 95% youth signings, 5% experience.
   • Alternative Plan: 60-70% youth signings, 30-40% experience.

2. Wage Policy:

   • Current Model: Strict £150,000 per week wage cap for all new signings.
   • Alternative Plan: Flexible wage cap with exceptions for key experienced players.

3. Player Development:

   • Current Model: Heavy reliance on young players’ development and subsequent sales for profitability.
   • Alternative Plan: Combines development of young players with the stability and immediate benefits of purchasing experienced players.

4. Financial Focus:

   • Current Model: Primarily focused on long-term financial sustainability through low-cost acquisitions and high-margin sales.
   • Alternative Plan: Balances financial sustainability with the need to maintain competitive on-field performance to drive revenues and maintain fan satisfaction.

5. Mentorship and Leadership:

   • Current Model: Limited scope for mentorship due to fewer experienced players.
   • Alternative Plan: Ensures a core of experienced players are present to guide and mentor young talents, crucial for their growth and market value enhancement.

 

I didn't read it because it looked exactly the same as the first one I didn't read. 

[Max Fowler]

1 minute ago, thevelourfog said:

That makes sense, because it reflected entirely what Clearlake consistently say and have written, and is removed to the point of delusion from the reality of what they are doing. Boehly using Chelsea as a vehicle to promote another venture he has involvement with is precisely evidence that we're struggling to attract sponsorship and have spots to fill, not of "leveraging opportunities". It's shuffling money between bank accounts, not having new money coming into any of them. 

I think you're missing the point. Traditional sponsorships will likely decrease with this model, as will revenues from on-field success. It doesn't mean it's not a big part of the financial jigsaw.

It is for any Premier League club.

[Max Fowler]

Just now, Mark Kelly said:

 

I didn't read it because it looked exactly the same as the first one I didn't read. 

It's a lovely quip Mark again and sure to get some likes, but at this point you're just moving the goalposts. I provide long and detailed reasoning and you can't be bothered. I make a simple point and you tell me to give long and detailed reasoning.. ya da ya da ya da

[Ham]

Using Chat GPT to formulate a stance is a new low for the forum. 

 

[Mark Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

It's a lovely quip Mark again and sure to get some likes, but at this point you're just moving the goalposts. I provide long and detailed reasoning and you can't be bothered. I make a simple point and you tell me to give long and detailed reasoning.. ya da ya da ya da

Do you think you could perhaps wind the pomposity in a little? 

I did try generating a Max Fowler response to this but it began with "OMG the sky is falling why won't everyone agree with me " so I gave up 

 

[Chelsea_Matt]

🍿🍿🍿 👀🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Max Fowler]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Do you think you could perhaps wind the pomposity in a little? 

I did try generating a Max Fowler response to this but it began with "OMG the sky is falling why won't everyone agree with me " so I gave up 

Sure thing Mark. Actually all I want to do is engage in debates about the actual points but seeing as many are resorting to personal comments when they don't have a leg to stand on with their own points, I'll let my arguments speak for themselves 🙂

Edited Sunday at 19:22 by Max Fowler

[Mark Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Sure thing Mark. Actually all I want to do is engage in debates about the actual points but seeing as many are resorting to personal comments when they don't have a leg to stand on with their own points, I'll let my arguments speak for themselves 🙂

I wouldn't. 

[Max Fowler]

14 minutes ago, Ham said:

Using Chat GPT to formulate a stance is a new low for the forum. 

Again, I am dealing with such a litany of non-points, whatabouttery, personal non-sequiturs and yet I am asked to provide detailed responses at the same time. I need a team of people to handle all of it.

Ironic how you love it when our owners use AI but hate it when I do 🫠

Another non-sequitur to avoid actually engaging in the points I have made.

[Ham]

2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Again, I am dealing with such a litany of non-points, whatabouttery, personal non-sequiturs and yet I am asked to provide detailed responses at the same time. I need a team of people to handle all of it.

Ironic how you love it when our owners use AI but hate it when I do 🫠

Another non-sequitur to avoid actually engaging in the points I have made.

People have given you their answers all day but you won't accept them. 

You have a problem. 

[Max Fowler]

5 minutes ago, Ham said:

People have given you their answers all day but you won't accept them. 

You have a problem. 

If that's your way of saying let's agree to disagree Ham, I agree.

But I don't agree with your framing. 🙂

[Original 21]

[Bison]

11 minutes ago, Original 21 said:

Maresca probably asked for Marc Guehi and Winstewart said this is the closest we can do.

[Backbiter]

3 minutes ago, Bison said:

Maresca probably asked for Marc Guehi and Winstewart said this is the closest we can do.

Exactly what I thought!

 

[McCreadie]

My opinion, and it is only that, is that if you buy enough good young players, to allow for those that will inevitably fail, you can succeed in a relatively short space of time.
It does not need to take 20 years or anything like.

If you imagine this current squad with another year of PL experience, improving at a similar rate to last season and with a returning James, Nkunku, Lavia, Fofana, then the need for “old heads” actually becomes somewhat diminished by next summer. These players will know  properly what’s expected by then. There will be leaders in the group.

From that point, the better of the younger bought players (I.e. Estevan, Paez) can then feed into the squad 2 or 3 at a time, per season, with the rest on loan or at Strasbourg.

Personally, I would suggest that we just need to do enough business to get top 4 this season. That CL qualification will then likely allow us to buy a key player or two, per year.

There is currently nothing at all to suggest we are becoming a club that will sell its best players. We have so far sold no-one of any consequence and until we do, that is all unsubstantiated guesswork. We clearly are very likely to sell a lot of improved and failing young players for more, less or equal to what we paid. Again, my thought is that these will mostly  be from the loan army, the academy and Strasbourg inmates that we don’t think will ever make it here. There will obviously also be squad players here that wil fail too.

Caveat - for clarity, I would buy another Jackson level striker and let them battle it out. A new keeper would be good but Petrovic will do until we get to CL. I would have liked a grade A CB, but I retain huge hopes for the Colwill/Fofana axis.

Only 44% of transfers work. The rest fail.

 

 

[Floyd25]

 

1 hour ago, Original 21 said:

Wow, we’ve found our striker then, I’m sure young Gooey will fire us in to the top four.

[Max Fowler]

Just now, McCreadie said:

My opinion, and it is only that, is that if you buy enough good young players, to allow for those that will inevitably fail, you can succeed in a relatively short space of time.
It does not need to take 20 years or anything like.

If you imagine this current squad with another year of PL experience, improving at a similar rate to last season and with a returning James, Nkunku, Lavia, Fofana, then the need for “old heads” actually becomes somewhat diminished by next summer. These players will know  properly what’s expected by then. There will be leaders in the group.

From that point, the better of the younger bought players (I.e. Estevan, Paez) can then feed into the squad 2 or 3 at a time, per season, with the rest on loan or at Strasbourg.

Personally, I would suggest that we just need to do enough business to get top 4 this season. That CL qualification will then likely allow us to buy a key player or two, per year.

There is currently nothing at all to suggest we are becoming a club that will sell its best players. We have so far sold no-one of any consequence and until we do, that is all unsubstantiated guesswork. We clearly are very likely to sell a lot of improved and failing young players for more, less or equal to what we paid. Again, my thought is that these will mostly  be from the loan army, the academy and Strasbourg inmates that we don’t think will ever make it here. There will obviously also be squad players here that wil fail too.

Caveat - for clarity, I would buy another Jackson level striker and let them battle it out. A new keeper would be good but Petrovic will do until we get to CL. I would have liked a grade A CB, but I retain huge hopes for the Colwill/Fofana axis.

Only 44% of transfers work. The rest fail.

Thanks for this McCreadie, at least you made some points to agree/disagree with:

1) James / Nkunku / Fofana cannot be relied on at all. It is highly likely that they will be injured for large parts of next season, as they have for large parts of the last 4-5 seasons. We are in serious trouble if the club thinks they can rely on them as our experienced players and that is part of the strategy.

2) As for the "leaders", there aren't any - even among the players you mentioned. I believe what you are calling leaders is simply the more senior players in the squad, but they are not really "leaders".

3) As for no evidence, there is zero evidence that we will be buying a "key player or two" in the coming seasons. I appreciate this is simply what you would like / think would be a good idea, but it's not happening. The club thinks the squad is as good as complete now, we will supplement with more youth from now on perhaps unless we sell a big player.

4) It's not about us being a selling club per se. It's about the fact that the young players we have bought are likely to have resale value if needed. IMO you miss the point that young players are being bought yes partly with the idea of potentially joining the first team, but also because the players themselves are a solid investment (low wage, low age, with transfer fees continuing to rise season on season).

Edited Sunday at 22:35 by Max Fowler

[McCreadie]

27 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

1) James / Nkunku / Fofana cannot be relied on at all. It is highly likely that they will be injured for large parts of next season,  

This is the problem in a nutshell. I laid out a possible scenario. You reply with a bold underlined guess, that you have decided is a “fact”. It’s not. Neither of us know what will happen, my guess is one or two of those 4 will struggle with injury to some extent or other and 2 or 3 will be absolutely fine. For instance, James was fit before the end of the season and has an extra 2 months of rehabilitation to make double sure. 
 

54 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

.2) As for the "leaders", there aren't any - even among the players you mentioned. I believe what you are calling leaders is simply the more senior players in the squad, but they are not really "leaders".

There is no JT, but having a Tiago Silva on the pitch actually made next to no difference in this context last season anyway.  You are right in so much as I think the balance of senior players on the pitch will be marginally better and those that had zero PL apps last season will have 50 by Xmas. It will help a bit. My opinion is that resilience will emerge from within this group. In an ideal world, we all want a JT/Drogba/Ballack/Essien leadership group, but this is not that.

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

3) As for no evidence, there is zero evidence that we will be buying a "key player or two" in the coming seasons. I appreciate this is simply what you would like / think would be a good idea, but it's not happening. The club thinks the squad is as good as complete now, we will supplement with more youth from now on perhaps unless we sell a big player.

 

Lucky I didn’t say that then…
The rest in bold is all made up conjecture.

 

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

4) It's not about us being a selling club per se. It's about the fact that the young players we have bought are likely to have resale value if needed. IMO you miss the point that young players are being bought yes partly with the idea of potentially joining the first team, but also because the players themselves are a solid investment (low wage, low age, with transfer fees continuing to rise season on season).

I don’t miss that point, I just don’t think it’s a bad idea 😆

My general position is that we have to wait to see what is actually happening and not make conclusions based on our idea of what is happening. That is all. 
 

Only 44% of transfers are a success.

[kev61]

17 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

Good morning kev. Great to have you back.

Thanks Michael spent a bit of time in Portugal with my good lady.