|
limjamrace
627 posts
21 months
|
m3sye said: Thoughts on tonight ? Think the players will be up for it and get a win?
Birmingham have a few out I think. My feelings as well!
|
|
|
Wombat3
5,192 posts
75 months
|
im said: Corsair7 said: Aren't the rules on what a club can spend on players changing shortly? If you mean FFP then that won't lay down any rules on what a club can spend on an individual player but rather that the club must "break-even". Within that stipulation there is much room for interpretation I suspect. What UEFA proposes isn't a Salary cap for players or a Transfer limit on clubs as these would be illegal under European law but the promotion of the idea that if there is foreign investment, it should been aimed at developing the youth/infrastructure of a club. They want clubs to work within their income and to be by-and-large debt-free. Annual Audits will carried out on all clubs wishing to participate in any UEFA competitions to ensure that these objectives are met. In a nutshell, you can continue to buy as many Torres's as you like as long as you achieve a break-even(ish) result each year. They'll be as much thought put into manipulating/achieving this goal as there will be into the tactics used by the team on the pitch - you just wont see them.  Yep - but there are ways around it. Man City (who's wage bill is higher than its turnover) gets Etihad to sponsor it and name the Stadium. Said airline which also just happens to be owned by the club's owners.  Abramovitch could do the same I expect by booting out Samsung & having Sibneft become the main club sponsor if he wanted. His CV is "colourful"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Abramovich
|
|
|
limjamrace
627 posts
21 months
|
TEKNOPUG said: Which is why I think that Chelsea's golden period may be coming to an end. Roman simply can't go and spend 100's of millions each year on the top players in the world, regardless of how many billions he has in his bank account. Apart from Torres (£50m),Shevy(£32m?),Drogba,Cole who else was in the 100's millions. The Jose & Roman beginings started with a statement ..Jose will not get involved in "Galaticos"! We have a half squad of youngsters all captured on a budget price waiting to go go.. Perhaps as in my usual optimistic profile we could say we could be heading for a diamond period now.. Think positive...We are CFC!!
|
|
|
TEKNOPUG
7,470 posts
74 months
|
Wombat3 said: EFA 
|
|
|
im
28,005 posts
86 months
|
Wombat3 said: Yep - but there are ways around it. Man City (who's wage bill is higher than its turnover) gets Etihad to sponsor it and name the Stadium. Said airline which also just happens to be owned by the club's owners. Agreed, and there are many-many more schemes that are yet to be revealed. City's Etihad manoeuvre has yet to be looked at by UEFA as the FFP rules haven't yet been implemented and City could, in theory, play crap and get relegated meaning FFP won't apply to them anyway Sillyness aside, you can bet that if UEFA decide that the Etihad sponsorship deal doesn't help City achieve break-even then the European courts are going to be used to overturn that decision. You can be sure that Roman is an interested observer.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
TEKNOPUG
7,470 posts
74 months
|
limjamrace said: TEKNOPUG said: Which is why I think that Chelsea's golden period may be coming to an end. Roman simply can't go and spend 100's of millions each year on the top players in the world, regardless of how many billions he has in his bank account. Apart from Torres (£50m),Shevy(£32m?),Drogba,Cole who else was in the 100's millions. The Jose & Roman beginings started with a statement ..Jose will not get involved in "Galaticos"! They were all bought pre-FFP. Mourinho spent over £290million on players during his tenure - and that was when £290million was a lot! Most of the players bought would cost a lot more today. There is no way that Chelsea can go and spend £400m on players in the next couple of seasons and still meet FFP. Before FFP, Roman could do and spend want he wanted. Now it's not so easy with FFP and also Citeh competing for the best players, when previuosly, Chelsea could blow every club in the world out of the water with the transfer fees and wages.
|
|
|
im
28,005 posts
86 months
|
The Times are reporting that Abramovitch has contacted Pep Guardiola to see if he would be interested in the job.
Unfortunately I can't link to it as the The Times is a subscripition-only site.
|
|
|
Wombat3
5,192 posts
75 months
|
|
|
Riff Raff
2,231 posts
64 months
|
im said: The Times are reporting that Abramovitch has contacted Pep Guardiola to see if he would be interested in the job.
Unfortunately I can't link to it as the The Times is a subscripition-only site. There are pages of articles in today's Times about Chelsea and Abramovich. None of them particularly complimentary. The Guardiola article sheds no new insights though, and I really can't see it happening myself. More interesting were the bits about why TSO won't be back. im said: Corsair7 said: Aren't the rules on what a club can spend on players changing shortly? If you mean FFP then that won't lay down any rules on what a club can spend on an individual player but rather that the club must "break-even". Within that stipulation there is much room for interpretation I suspect. What UEFA proposes isn't a Salary cap for players or a Transfer limit on clubs as these would be illegal under European law but the promotion of the idea that if there is foreign investment, it should been aimed at developing the youth/infrastructure of a club. They want clubs to work within their income and to be by-and-large debt-free. Annual Audits will carried out on all clubs wishing to participate in any UEFA competitions to ensure that these objectives are met. In a nutshell, you can continue to buy as many Torres's as you like as long as you achieve a break-even(ish) result each year. They'll be as much thought put into manipulating/achieving this goal as there will be into the tactics used by the team on the pitch - you just wont see them. TEKNOPUG said: Which is why I think that Chelsea's golden period may be coming to an end. Roman simply can't go and spend 100's of millions each year on the top players in the world, regardless of how many billions he has in his bank account. This is where the next couple of years get interesting. CFC have spent a fortune in the past couple of years on compensation for hiring and firing managers. All of this hits the bottom line in the year it happens, and is one of the reasons the club doesn't make a profit. That, added to the fact that the club are a bit revenue constrained - at least compared to the other big UK clubs (due to capacity at SB) - and the fact that we need to buy a shed load of players this summer, and the write offs that will arise from getting shot of players still under contract are going to make breaking even over the next few years tricky. One thing is for certain - the board need to make it clear to Abramovich that arbitrary hires and fires and random player purchases just can't happen any more. If he's serious about wanting the club to play in Europe, then he's going to have to listen. Anyway. It will be really interesting to see how the circle gets squared.
|
|
|
Oi_Oi_Savaloy
1,895 posts
129 months
|
Don't worry chaps; I've got the solution for you.
One word.
Martinez!
|
|
|
andyjo1982
4,172 posts
79 months
|
Can I just check something, so if the club doesn't meet the Fifa fair play rules, they cannot participate in Europe? Do you you think a club like Chelsea would take a hit and miss ou on CL football, by going out and spending perhaps 300-400mil in 1 summer, in order to build for the future?
Also when do these rules come into force?
|
|
|
TEKNOPUG
7,470 posts
74 months
|
andyjo1982 said: Can I just check something, so if the club doesn't meet the Fifa fair play rules, they cannot participate in Europe? Do you you think a club like Chelsea would take a hit and miss ou on CL football, by going out and spending perhaps 300-400mil in 1 summer, in order to build for the future?
Also when do these rules come into force? I haven't read the small print but that sounds like a pretty massive and obvious loophole to me. Say Chelsea finish 5th (or lower). Won't be in the CL anyway and sod the Europa, so go and spend 100's of millions on new players, loss is written down the first year and then a profit showing the next when they qualify CL. I'm not sure how the timings work for which periods the losses would relate to and when they would affect FFP. I'd expect you'd probably have to write-off 2 seasons at least out of Europe, regardless of where you finish. It must have been thought of when the FFP was written, otherwise you would already see teams ignoring it and buying a team for the next 5 years, knowing that they'll only get banned for one.
|
|
|
Cheib
6,238 posts
44 months
|
TEKNOPUG said: limjamrace said: TEKNOPUG said: Which is why I think that Chelsea's golden period may be coming to an end. Roman simply can't go and spend 100's of millions each year on the top players in the world, regardless of how many billions he has in his bank account. Apart from Torres (£50m),Shevy(£32m?),Drogba,Cole who else was in the 100's millions. The Jose & Roman beginings started with a statement ..Jose will not get involved in "Galaticos"! They were all bought pre-FFP. Mourinho spent over £290million on players during his tenure - and that was when £290million was a lot! Most of the players bought would cost a lot more today. There is no way that Chelsea can go and spend £400m on players in the next couple of seasons and still meet FFP. Before FFP, Roman could do and spend want he wanted. Now it's not so easy with FFP and also Citeh competing for the best players, when previuosly, Chelsea could blow every club in the world out of the water with the transfer fees and wages. It doesn't necessarilly matter when they were bought. In the case of Torres that £50mil is getting amortised as a loss in the accounts over the life of the contract....so that does imapct Chelsea's earnings. I don't think FFP will actually have any teeth....firstly banning clubs form the CL is the ultimate sanction, there are several snactions before that is triggered....like transfer bans etc Plus the major clubs are all looking to be part of a Super League league long term surely ? http://www.sunday-guardian.com/sports/the-rummenig...FFP just gives the clubs a reason to pull the plug....they'll all have plenty of cash if UEFA don't take their share of the profits.
|
|
|
TEKNOPUG
7,470 posts
74 months
|
Cheib said: It doesn't necessarilly matter when they were bought. In the case of Torres that £50mil is getting amortised as a loss in the accounts over the life of the contract....so that does imapct Chelsea's earnings. I don't think FFP will actually have any teeth....firstly banning clubs form the CL is the ultimate sanction, there are several snactions before that is triggered....like transfer bans etc Plus the major clubs are all looking to be part of a Super League league long term surely ? http://www.sunday-guardian.com/sports/the-rummenig...FFP just gives the clubs a reason to pull the plug....they'll all have plenty of cash if UEFA don't take their share of the profits. Interesting read but seems paradoxical given Chelsea's recent purse-tightening with regards to staff costs and the like.
|
|
|
The Jolly Todger
1,170 posts
49 months
|
Surely the biggest danger is that if Chelsea finish outside the CL places it will be much harder to attract PG, JM or any other top manager.
Di Matteo was my favourite player during the mid-late nineties, I just hope he can do the business.
|
|
|
Cheib
6,238 posts
44 months
|
TEKNOPUG said: Cheib said: It doesn't necessarilly matter when they were bought. In the case of Torres that £50mil is getting amortised as a loss in the accounts over the life of the contract....so that does imapct Chelsea's earnings. I don't think FFP will actually have any teeth....firstly banning clubs form the CL is the ultimate sanction, there are several snactions before that is triggered....like transfer bans etc Plus the major clubs are all looking to be part of a Super League league long term surely ? http://www.sunday-guardian.com/sports/the-rummenig...FFP just gives the clubs a reason to pull the plug....they'll all have plenty of cash if UEFA don't take their share of the profits. Interesting read but seems paradoxical given Chelsea's recent purse-tightening with regards to staff costs and the like. True but the threat will give them more bargaining power....releasing players for nonsense friendlies, and presumably a higher share of CL revenues ultimately.
|
|
|
Riff Raff
2,231 posts
64 months
|
Spiritual_Beggar said: Is the game on TV tonight anywhere? ITV. Allegedly.
|
|
|
Spiritual_Beggar
4,538 posts
63 months
|
Riff Raff said: ITV. Allegedly. Just noticed. Thanks Riff Raff.
|
|
|
im
28,005 posts
86 months
|
TEKNOPUG said: andyjo1982 said: Can I just check something, so if the club doesn't meet the Fifa fair play rules, they cannot participate in Europe? Do you you think a club like Chelsea would take a hit and miss ou on CL football, by going out and spending perhaps 300-400mil in 1 summer, in order to build for the future?
Also when do these rules come into force? I haven't read the small print but that sounds like a pretty massive and obvious loophole to me. Say Chelsea finish 5th (or lower). Won't be in the CL anyway and sod the Europa, so go and spend 100's of millions on new players, loss is written down the first year and then a profit showing the next when they qualify CL. I'm not sure how the timings work for which periods the losses would relate to and when they would affect FFP. I'd expect you'd probably have to write-off 2 seasons at least out of Europe, regardless of where you finish. It must have been thought of when the FFP was written, otherwise you would already see teams ignoring it and buying a team for the next 5 years, knowing that they'll only get banned for one. I suspect UEFA's Auditors will effectively work to predifined standards for measuring whether a club has or has not fallen foul of the FFP regulations - regardless of the Balance Sheet provided to them at the clubs year-end (and which will have been signed off by their own external auditors). They'll probably take the Stat Accounts, look at what makes them up and produce a revised "UEFA Compliant" Balance Sheet which will include any adjustments they (UEFA's Auditors) deem neccessary. ..  ... Alternately, there might be some kind of standard calculation used by UEFA that simply looks at specific items. This would make more sense if they are to measure all clubs equally. For instance, if using the club-produced balance sheet, Spanish clubs MIGHT write their Players values down over 4 years whereas Greek clubs do it over 5 years giving Greek clubs an advantage when it comes to achieving 'breaking-even'. I dunno and frankly as its not something thats likely to affect my club I don't have the inclination to check it out.  My gut feeling is that the vast majority of clubs will comply with FFP although maybe not in spirit.
|
|
|
essexplumber
7,286 posts
42 months
|
The coaching team in charge at Chelsea is the same coaching team that was sacked by WBA last season.
|
|
