Profit & Sustainability Rules

Ice8Cold said:
What an absolute joke of a club they have become.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Hard to imagine making any more of a mess of things, even if they tried!


At least with Abramovich, there was some kind of clear structure, plan as what they were about and building. Identity, almost.

Even after Mourinho left, and the manager revolving door started. They did appoint proper top tier, or close to, managers all the time. And there was clearly plan as to style and style of players they retained... many genuine world class or close to, who stayed at core of squad fir years. Im struggling to think of anyone in Chelsea teamoff top of my head now... beyond Palmer, robust Argentinian bloke with tattoos all of him in midfield and the tw4t with the long hair.

Under Boehly theyve become a proper joke tbh. Or at least lack some semblance of structure and something that tells you what theyre working towards....both on and off the pitch. I just tend to see articles like this ir a headline around how theyre selling/swapping hotels, youth team, womens team or some weird cupboard in changing rooms tgat apparently a load of failed, ostracised internationals earning 6 figures a week are forced to use, to keep the away from first team squad

Appointing managers who no disrespect, but should be Palace, fulham or West ham imo. Scatter gun approach and paying well over odds for tens of unproven players... many of whom clearly aren't up to what theyre trying to achieve. I jyst don't see any pattern, structure that indicates building a squad for a particularly ethos, medium, long term over arching plan.

Not sure how hands on that American bloke is still, after apparently initially being one of those entrepreneurs that believes he has midas touch with every domain he enters... rather than leaving it to experts - as foley does.

Quite amusing though- bit like united, making an almost inconceivable mess of it, despite ridiculous cheat budget allowed by psr (anti competition, that effectively handicaps smaller clubs before competition begins each year ), before perhaps even cheating further and breaking that (no surprise, given non stop above average, good, very good pl level players theyve accumulated and stuck on long contracts, 6 figures a week).

Now as I think we knew would happen, all those failed overpaid signngs are coming back to bite them. So theyre getting even more haphazard having to offload, bringing new faces in... seemingly hoping something will stick, work. Yet the team looks no better than it did at start of 'project.

Awful/gross senior mgmt direction and leadership Only reason imo, when years later theres been no progress. Now basically 'hoping' to win something major, which obviously wont happen.quite incredible
 
Last edited:
Telly123 said:
Couldn't agree more. Hard to imagine making any more of a mess of things, even if they tried!


At least with Abramovich, there was some kind of clear structure, plan as what they were about and building. Identity, almost.

Even after Mourinho left, and the manager revolving door started. They did appoint proper top tier, or close to, managers all the time. And there was clearly plan as to style and style of players they retained... many genuine world class or close to, who stayed at core of squad fir years. Im struggling to think of anyone in Chelsea teamoff top of my head now... beyond Palmer, robust Argentinian bloke with tattoos all of him in midfield and the tw4t with the long hair.

Under Boehly theyve become a proper joke tbh. Or at least lack some semblance of structure and something that tells you what theyre working towards....both on and off the pitch. I just tend to see articles like this ir a headline around how theyre selling/swapping hotels, youth team, womens team or some weird cupboard in changing rooms tgat apparently a load of failed, ostracised internationals earning 6 figures a week are forced to use, to keep the away from first team squad

Appointing managers who no disrespect, but should be Palace, fulham or West ham imo. Scatter gun approach and paying well over odds for tens of unproven players... many of whom clearly aren't up to what theyre trying to achieve. I jyst don't see any pattern, structure that indicates building a squad for a particularly ethos, medium, long term over arching plan.

Not sure how hands on that American bloke is still, after apparently initially being one of those entrepreneurs that believes he has midas touch with every domain he enters... rather than leaving it to experts - as foley does.

Quite amusing though- bit like united, making an almost inconceivable mess of it, despite ridiculous cheat budget allowed by psr (anti competition, that effectively handicaps smaller clubs before competition begins each year ), before perhaps even cheating further and breaking that (no surprise, given non stop above average, good, very good pl level players theyve accumulated and stuck on long contracts, 6 figures a week).

Now as I think we knew would happen, all those failed overpaid signngs are coming back to bite them. So theyre getting even more haphazard having to offload, bringing new faces in... seemingly hoping something will stick, work. Yet the team looks no better than it did at start of 'project.

Awful/gross senior mgmt direction and leadership Only reason imo, when years later theres been no progress. Now basically 'hoping' to win something major, which obviously wont happen.quite incredible
Click to expand...

Under Roman - they actually had a serious structure, and were a feared side. Hired proper managers and had footballers that captained their countries in most positions.

Now? Where to start? You've explained it all perfectly really. Not much more needs to be said.

2 f***ing billion pounds for all this.

I get the feeling that their recruitment is all about trying to prove a point. As if they're trying to be different or too clever? Not just players, but also managers? They can sign the most random footballers for over £50 million that has flop written over it in Gittens and Garnarcho. But they feel paying an extra 2 million is too much for a world class keeper in Donnaruma or Maignan isn't worth it?! And of course they crash out of the UCL because their back up keeper wasn't good enough...

They're the type of club that would reject Pep Guardiola even if Pep begged to join, in favour of Gary O'Neil because he manages Strasbourg...
 
Ice8Cold said:
Under Roman - they actually had a serious structure, and were a feared side. Hired proper managers and had footballers that captained their countries in most positions.

Now? Where to start? You've explained it all perfectly really. Not much more needs to be said.

2 f***ing billion pounds for all this.

I get the feeling that their recruitment is all about trying to prove a point. As if they're trying to be different or too clever? Not just players, but also managers? They can sign the most random footballers for over £50 million that has flop written over it in Gittens and Garnarcho. But they feel paying an extra 2 million is too much for a world class keeper in Donnaruma or Maignan isn't worth it?! And of course they crash out of the UCL because their back up keeper wasn't good enough...

They're the type of club that would reject Pep Guardiola even if Pep begged to join, in favour of Gary O'Neil because he manages Strasbourg...
Click to expand...
FFP rules were also different.
 
bremen said:
FFP rules were also different.
Click to expand...
Exactly, also the figures aren't adjusted for inflation. For example the Man City 2011 figure is around £300M in today's money. Older Chelsea and Man City ones might well feature or top the table.

The structure and strategy of early Chelsea was just to buy out other Premier League sides. There was an unprecedented number of purchases from the league and at the time they were accused of just buying players to nobble their rivals.

As you say FFP did prevent that and made player sales more valuable to their rivals so the Chelsea of today needs to adopt a different strategy. They've been absolute masters of evading FFP as the accounts have shown.

They're obviously stacking their squad with young talent because they can't just buy first teamers from other clubs and gambling there will be an elite squad in there at some point. At the very least they hope to have some significantly appreciated footballing assets that could be sold to fund a squad.

Donnaruma vs Gittens is a great example of that strategy. Donnaruma was only a few million more but he is at his peak and won't sell for more than that. He's also on three times Gittens wage. He's costing £30M a year for 5 years with little chance of getting much of that back. Gittens is half that with a fair chance of being a net profit if sold in 5 years time
 
Kudos said:
Exactly, also the figures aren't adjusted for inflation. For example the Man City 2011 figure is around £300M in today's money. Older Chelsea and Man City ones might well feature or top the table.

The structure and strategy of early Chelsea was just to buy out other Premier League sides. There was an unprecedented number of purchases from the league and at the time they were accused of just buying players to nobble their rivals.

As you say FFP did prevent that and made player sales more valuable to their rivals so the Chelsea of today needs to adopt a different strategy. They've been absolute masters of evading FFP as the accounts have shown.

They're obviously stacking their squad with young talent because they can't just buy first teamers from other clubs and gambling there will be an elite squad in there at some point. At the very least they hope to have some significantly appreciated footballing assets that could be sold to fund a squad.

Donnaruma vs Gittens is a great example of that strategy. Donnaruma was only a few million more but he is at his peak and won't sell for more than that. He's also on three times Gittens wage. He's costing £30M a year for 5 years with little chance of getting much of that back. Gittens is half that with a fair chance of being a net profit if sold in 5 years time
Click to expand...

Yeah, albeit Chelsea are and have been spending absolute sh1tloads still for years and years.

And they are most definitely are buying first team players... for a lot of money, from other top/top tier clubs. Or close to... paying many of them 6 figures a week.



I'd say Donarumma is an anomalie rather than the rule. He was on silly money at psg... as psg tend to do, in order to attract players considered world class... or rather, tended to do during their gallictico squad building phase a few years back. he was certainly rated by most critics as best keeper in the game back then.

Chelsea are spending more way more than us (most). I dont think their mindset is about gambling on getting an elite squad. Just as we operate on next rung or so down from them... ie, 20 to 30 mill, whereas theyre consistently buying in volume for much higher fees every year, id expect their recruitment setup to be uncovering and coaching staff to be developing higher calibre players (elite) players by now tbh. Just as our hit rate of successes is what.... 75% or more of players we've signed under foley?


Im observing this almost comical ongoing churn of expensive players at Chelsea last few years. To me that indicates more towards a level of mismanagement, incompetence tbh... rather than a victim of the system....albeit, yes... within a new framework compared to pre psr landscape.

They are still spending insane amounts on players/volume of players.. and the hit rate is abysmal.... dread to imagine how many players wages at other clubs theyre still contributing to.

Just imagine if Hughes had a similar failure rate during his time here ;)
 
kirsikka said:
Well, that'll scare the teams with a turnover of £500m+. At this point, why even bother pretending it's anything but a system to protect the hegemony? I mean, these rules always have been, but it seems like every single feckin change makes it worse and worse.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2056014979069841763
Click to expand...
Yeh, this league is an absolute joke. It’s getting to the stage where it would probably just be better for everyone if the legacy sides just buggered off and joined some sort of super league.

The rest of us would be financially worse off but at least the remaining clubs would be able to compete in a competitive league with a level playing ground.

It’s not just a problem here either. The same side wins the league every year in France, in Germany, it’s virtually always one of two in Spain. The financial landscape at the very top of the game has made the game anti competitive to the point that nobody else can ever hope to establish themselves alongside these clubs in the long term.

The 70s and 80s were the golden era of the game. It’s only going to get worse.
 
JT_AFCB said:
Yeh, this league is an absolute joke. It’s getting to the stage where it would probably just be better for everyone if the legacy sides just buggered off and joined some sort of super league.

The rest of us would be financially worse off but at least the remaining clubs would be able to compete in a competitive league with a level playing ground.

It’s not just a problem here either. The same side wins the league every year in France, in Germany, it’s virtually always one of two in Spain. The financial landscape at the very top of the game has made the game anti competitive to the point that nobody else can ever hope to establish themselves alongside these clubs in the long term.

The 70s and 80s were the golden era of the game. It’s only going to get worse.
Click to expand...
70’sand 80’s. You’re having a laugh.
You weren’t even born in the 70’s.
More likely to get a punch in the mouth back in those days, especially away from home.
No wet lettuce leaf rub downs about for you then Waz.
 
JT_AFCB said:
Yeh, this league is an absolute joke. It’s getting to the stage where it would probably just be better for everyone if the legacy sides just buggered off and joined some sort of super league.

The rest of us would be financially worse off but at least the remaining clubs would be able to compete in a competitive league with a level playing ground.

It’s not just a problem here either. The same side wins the league every year in France, in Germany, it’s virtually always one of two in Spain. The financial landscape at the very top of the game has made the game anti competitive to the point that nobody else can ever hope to establish themselves alongside these clubs in the long term.

The 70s and 80s were the golden era of the game. It’s only going to get worse.
Click to expand...
70's and 80's golden age. Ibrox Heysel, Hillsborough, Bradford - how many lives lost. Fences imposed around pitches, rotting decrepit stadiums. Away fans treated like dirt at most grounds, remember Stamford Bridge fenced in so tight we couldn't breathe. Yep - the golden age.
 
redharry said:
70's and 80's golden age. Ibrox Heysel, Hillsborough, Bradford - how many lives lost. Fences imposed around pitches, rotting decrepit stadiums. Away fans treated like dirt at most grounds, remember Stamford Bridge fenced in so tight we couldn't breathe. Yep - the golden age.
Click to expand...
And Liverpool won the div 1, 7 times in the 80s
 
borisatha said:
70’sand 80’s. You’re having a laugh.
You weren’t even born in the 70’s.
More likely to get a punch in the mouth back in those days, especially away from home.
No wet lettuce leaf rub downs about for you then Waz.
Click to expand...
Always find it interesting or odd how the definition of a 'big club' often seems to be this vague idea of clubs who were successful in the 70s and 80s and then frozen in time since.
 
...yes many things about the 70's and 80's were horrible and fans were treated like scum at times?
However how are we treated now, as cash cows, or worse still priced out of going to games?
Agree stadiums are better and generally the fear of getting your head kicked in is much less....but the football is more boring, and the big clubs are universes away from the likes of us! VAR is a cancer killing all passion and thrills from a goal scored.
The playing field was more level back forty or fifty years ago...teams like Derby, Nottingham Forest, and Ipswich Town could compete with the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal...
Depends how you see it I guess...for me I prefer how it was before the leviathans of Sky, HBO and Amazon stole the game from us.
 
JT_AFCB said:
Yeh, this league is an absolute joke. It’s getting to the stage where it would probably just be better for everyone if the legacy sides just buggered off and joined some sort of super league.

The rest of us would be financially worse off but at least the remaining clubs would be able to compete in a competitive league with a level playing ground.

It’s not just a problem here either. The same side wins the league every year in France, in Germany, it’s virtually always one of two in Spain. The financial landscape at the very top of the game has made the game anti competitive to the point that nobody else can ever hope to establish themselves alongside these clubs in the long term.

The 70s and 80s were the golden era of the game. It’s only going to get worse.
Click to expand...

Yep, been saying it for a while. Financial fair play... under its various guises... is an absolute joke imo.

Anti-competion, a handicap that favours established clubs, that built their fanbases, stadiums etc before there were any regulations at all. Usually when theres handicap rules in sports, they're there to favour the weaker competitors, to balance the competition - but here we are in professional football, doing exactly the opposite!

I know something had to be done, but as things stand, id rather it went back to how it was pre-regulations.

If any wonders about this theory... just look at Newcastle; their mega rich owners, cl qualification, big stadium, fanbase etc, and still struggling to break into top 6.

Cynical people suggest that that is actually one of the reasons the structure is setup as it is, because it favours the long running most powerful clubs in the game.

Add to that var, which can also perhaps be utilised to favour outcomes, and ensure the pl 'product' remains whatit is to sponsors and global market
 
Telly123 said:
Yep, been saying it for a while. Financial fair play... under its various guises... is an absolute joke imo.

Anti-competion, a handicap that favours established clubs, that built their fanbases, stadiums etc before there were any regulations at all. Usually when theres handicap rules in sports, they're there to favour the weaker competitors, to balance the competition - but here we are in professional football, doing exactly the opposite!

I know something had to be done, but as things stand, id rather it went back to how it was pre-regulations.

If any wonders about this theory... just look at Newcastle; their mega rich owners, cl qualification, big stadium, fanbase etc, and still struggling to break into top 6.

Cynical people suggest that that is actually one of the reasons the structure is setup as it is, because it favours the long running most powerful clubs in the game.

Add to that var, which can also perhaps be utilised to favour outcomes, and ensure the pl 'product' remains whatit is to sponsors and global market
Click to expand...
There's definitely a number of clubs that are fearful of losing their status or rather owners who are protecting their investments.

Ironically it suits the "new rich" clubs because they bought their way to the top and now get to pull up the drawbridge.

It does require a league majority though so there are teams like Everton and West Ham that are in the squeezed middle supporting it.

As for VAR, even if you selectively used it (which they do) it's harder to justify a bias over having an on field referee.
 
It's hilarious and tragic in equal measure the way clubs like West Ham vote through these rules to help the biggest clubs because they believe one day they'll join them and so they should support these kinds of measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;