Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,511
- 330,451
The problem is finding buyers to pay the price they'll require before 30th of July.
Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread
- Thread starter ibbz
- Start date
JamieSpursCommunityUser
Well-Known Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 1,900
- 10,042
Now google how much United paid for Pogba or Chelsea for Lukaku (last time). You think they will sell Palmer for 40m, we spent more on Brennan Johnson. Liverpool spent that on Benteke 10 years ago. Liverpool will absoulutely need a player like Palmer.
Chelsea would need a lot more money to offload now if Arsenal and Utd didn't majorly help them out. Around 200m in 2 weeks?
I would look at the prices Leeds United were forced to sell their stars for 20 years ago, once other PL clubs smelled blood.
We picked up Keane, Robinson, Lennon for an absolute steal.
Whatever Palmer's market price, Chelsea are not negotiating from the position of strength they were with Lukaku or others.
The sales of Havertz etc happened before PSR and FFP showed it's teeth.
If the Everton, Forrest, City etc charges are still holding by next summer then clubs aren't going to pay book price for Chelsea players.
Throw in the competitive advantage of clubs saving their own FFP wiggle room, and it's not going to be easy.
Silvas wife’s a big problem as well.
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
They don't have to wait until the end of the season to try and offload players though. They could agree a deal now that would go through when the window reopens.
they also need to sell players for the next financial year as well, and then the year after this is going to be a long-term problem
Bluto Blutarsky
Well-Known Member
- Mar 4, 2021
- 15,185
- 70,732
That could be.
I could see them (Boehly) taking a longer-term approach - admit defeat in the short-term, take their lumps in penalties, and be prepared to come back in 2-3 years. Thats kinda f what I was thinking when I said they might just aim to get the loss down to a manageable amount rather than eliminate completely.
only1waddle
Well-Known Member
- Jun 18, 2012
- 8,211
- 12,415
I realise that, but why would clubs agree to a price now?
It's in the buying clubs interest to leave it until the last minute to drive the price down.
Can't see anyone doing it now.
Think Chelsea were waiting for us to bid for Gallagher in the last window and as far as i am aware we didn't contact them. Smart move to increase the pressure.
Didn't Kepa cost them like £80m a few years ago?
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
To get the player they want to buy. If the price is right why would they delay it and risk the player going elsewhere? They might save a few million, but they might miss out on the player entirely. If we were offered Gallagher for a reasonable fee now we'd probably get the deal done.
No chance of that happening.
next season won’t they have the same problem and the season after ?
luRRka
Well-Known Member
- Jul 27, 2008
- 3,667
- 15,536
30th June no?
Bluto Blutarsky
Well-Known Member
- Mar 4, 2021
- 15,185
- 70,732
Yes - but that would buy them some time to sell a player of two.
Sometimes you just have to make the most of a bad hand. And trying to be FFP compliant could be worse, long-term, than accepting the penalty
wakefieldyid
SC Supporter
- Jun 13, 2006
- 1,560
- 1,591
That's exactly the point that Swiss Ramble made in his analysis of their finances. Their manipulation of their player amortisation means that CFC have effectively signed post-dated cheques to the value of $1.9 billion, in the expectation that Champions League qualification will boost their revenues sufficiently to cover this outlay.
Pochemon94
Well-Known Member
- Aug 6, 2019
- 1,615
- 4,388
yeah its a soft cap, you breach it and you get fined/lose draft picks, thing is with baseball and their scouting they find gems in the later rounds and develop them into stars along with nabbing up a lot of foreign players at 16 from the DR and other countries.
luRRka
Well-Known Member
- Jul 27, 2008
- 3,667
- 15,536
His fee will be amortised by now (maybe a small amount owed still) so they could get a profit still. But he only has a year left and he's not very good so won't male them much
Bluto Blutarsky
Well-Known Member
- Mar 4, 2021
- 15,185
- 70,732
Kepa is an interesting case.
First he arrived in 2018, so his book value is probably going to be close to zero by the end of this season.
Second, he technically signed on a free - because Kepa had to pay his own release clause. So, from a book value perspective - he is very likely at 0.
Thus, any sale price should be recorded as pure profits.
only1waddle
Well-Known Member
- Jun 18, 2012
- 8,211
- 12,415
We'll go round in circles here but I don't think it's in most clubs interest, I'd be amazed if Chelsea were quoting reasonable fees at this point also.
I'm sure you've said it repeatedly in this thread:
It's not that they don't have saleable assets, it's that clubs with the money to pay big fees are tight on FFP, and clubs that have wriggle room on FFP have no money to pay big fees!
It's all well and good saying this player is worth this much, this player that much. If noone can or will pay its all moot.
