• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Daniel Levy - Chairman

Raziel said:
You are right, nothing is ever black and white .. however, repeatedly under Poch (and Harry) the "underinvested in" team was within 1 or 2 games of glory and failed to turn up

- I find that really hard to blame on the club/board/Levy, I watched those fudging games, bad selections, tactics, wrong meteorology, late subs .. whatever, things I put on the manager.
- The one game I think was a genuine exception (@DubaiSpur called out and I agree) was the 2017 game when Chelsea had 3 game changing subs on the bench including fudging Hazard.
- Leicester won that title because we fudged ourselves mentally at Chelsea, and weren't motivated enough in a couple of smaller games .. it was there for the taking, and along with the CL final it's two huge misses ...

p.s. Berahino would not have helped us ...
Click to expand...

Look, if you want to blame specific games, at least target the right ones. West Brom at home was massive. Jakob donkey punching Alli, Alli retaliating, Jakob making out he'd been floored by Tyson and the subsequent 1-1 draw were the moments (IMO).

As for your Berahino comment, you cannot possibly know that so why say it? How do you know Berahino off the bench would not have scored a winner against his old club that night?
 
Bishop said:
I stand corrected, but do you have the numbers for teams such Aston Villa who had splurge and earlier Saudi Sportswashing Machine?
Click to expand...

Here you go, updated with Villa / Saudi Sportswashing Machine / Leicester (just because I'd already collected Leicester's data before you asked).

upload_2020-8-30_21-44-1.png

So Villa and Saudi Sportswashing Machine's big spending seems to be pre-Levy, with us then outspending both of them between Levy joining and the stadium being built.
 
elltrev said:
Here you go, updated with Villa / Saudi Sportswashing Machine / Leicester (just because I'd already collected Leicester's data before you asked).

View attachment 9249

So Villa and Saudi Sportswashing Machine's big spending seems to be pre-Levy, with us then outspending both of them between Levy joining and the stadium being built.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I couldn't quite remember their spending patterns.
 
Bullet said:
Note that net transfer spend is often dwarfed by player's wages.
Note also some big sales like Bale and Coutinho can distort 5 year rolling figures.
Click to expand...

Yep, need full picture, wages, wage as %, total spend, net spend to understand.

The case to your point would be if you took the Torres, Suarez and Coutinho sales out of Pool's numbers, how it would be skewed across how many years?
 
Bullet said:
Note that net transfer spend is often dwarfed by player's wages.
Note also some big sales like Bale and Coutinho can distort 5 year rolling figures.
Click to expand...
This is very true and is actually where the biggest difference is to be found. I recall about 10nyears about Arsenal's wage bill was 1m a month higher than ours allowing them an additional 10 players on 100k a week if they so wished. This was at a time was 100k pw got you a very serious player. Luckily Arsenal were always unfocused and spent all their excess wages on 18 year (superkids [emoji1787]) or fancy Dan attacking players are never addressed their problems.
 
Bullet said:
Note that net transfer spend is often dwarfed by player's wages.
Click to expand...

The wages spend is equally critical for comparisons.

Bullet said:
Note also some big sales like Bale and Coutinho can distort 5 year rolling figures
Click to expand...

Not sure how much it distorts the 'achievement' though (not saying you meant it this way?) as your net spend is still a reflection of your wheeler dealing and although receiving eg £100m for a player makes your net spend look low (good?), on the flip side you most likely have lost your best player to receive that.
 
Indeed. Is there a way to paste the entire SwissRamble twitter thread about Cheatski's net spend, from this morning? It shows just how hard it is to pin down what "net spend" really is, with the amortisation plus loads of other factors skewing the "obvious" net figures.
 
Bullet said:
Indeed. Is there a way to paste the entire SwissRamble twitter thread about Cheatski's net spend, from this morning? It shows just how hard it is to pin down what "net spend" really is, with the amortisation plus loads of other factors skewing the "obvious" net figures.
Click to expand...
Yeah I read it
Made sense but also shows the flaws in FFP
They basically keep a player as longs s they can until their initial contact value has depreciated then well then on as a paper profit
Their playing trading is their largest source of income
And Roman is still propping them it
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Yeah I read it
Made sense but also shows the flaws in FFP
They basically keep a player as longs s they can until their initial contact value has depreciated then well then on as a paper profit
Their playing trading is their largest source of income
And Roman is still propping them it
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is a flaw in FFP. You have to have a standard method of depreciating assets and calculating profit on player trading, transfer fee spread over initial contract length is a sensible way of doing that considering at the end of the contract the player is worth zero (if they do not sign a new contract in the interim).

The only other feasible method would be to take the remaining player asset value when a player signs a new contract and depreciate that over the new contract length. So if a £50m player on a 5 year contract signed a new 5 year contract after 3 years, then the player’s asset value would be £20m, depreciating at £4m a year from then on.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I don’t think that is a flaw in FFP. You have to have a standard method of depreciating assets and calculating profit on player trading, transfer fee spread over initial contract length is a sensible way of doing that considering at the end of the contract the player is worth zero (if they do not sign a new contract in the interim).

The only other feasible method would be to take the remaining player asset value when a player signs a new contract and depreciate that over the new contract length. So if a £50m player on a 5 year contract signed a new 5 year contract after 3 years, then the player’s asset value would be £20m, depreciating at £4m a year from then on.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But money moves would be very difficult if this wasn't the approach.

Chelsea are taking advantage of the relaxation of FFP. Which illustrates that FFP has some effect.

Chelsea might be getting themselves into a spot of bother if the spending spree isn't followed by success on the pitch. If they keep doing well though it won't be much of a problem.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I don’t think that is a flaw in FFP. You have to have a standard method of depreciating assets and calculating profit on player trading, transfer fee spread over initial contract length is a sensible way of doing that considering at the end of the contract the player is worth zero (if they do not sign a new contract in the interim).

The only other feasible method would be to take the remaining player asset value when a player signs a new contract and depreciate that over the new contract length. So if a £50m player on a 5 year contract signed a new 5 year contract after 3 years, then the player’s asset value would be £20m, depreciating at £4m a year from then on.
Click to expand...
I believe that any payment awarded to the player/agent at the signing of a new contract (other than standard salary) is also amortised at new contracts.
 
braineclipse said:
Chelsea might be getting themselves into a spot of bother if the spending spree isn't followed by success on the pitch. If they keep doing well though it won't be much of a problem.
Click to expand...
Please help me out here, exactly how often does falling foul of FFP result in a serious problem? From memory Chelsea got round it by going on a splurge before their ban came into effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back