- May 7, 2006
- 21,314
- 35,143
Not being 'that guy' but it's June I think? Or is it July, just want to make sure.The problem is finding buyers to pay the price they'll require before 30th of July.
Not being 'that guy' but it's June I think? Or is it July, just want to make sure.The problem is finding buyers to pay the price they'll require before 30th of July.
Leeds were also fucked over by the stupid wages they were paying, based on being in the CL and with no relegation clauses.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.
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.
They're going to run out of saleable players before they dig themselves out of this hole.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
This just feels like something the Prem wouldn't allow, much like players must owning their own image rights to play.If it was any other club I'd say they were screwed, but they seem to land on their feet every time. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go the Barca route of selling future TV rights either.
This just feels like something the Prem wouldn't allow, much like players must owning their own image rights to play.
Naw, he's been a bright spot for them certainly, he plays well above everyone else for them and seems super confident on the ball even for his age.I haven’t seen much of Chelsea this year beyond the banter stuff so how good is Palmer?
From what I’ve seen his stats look good but on a closer look half of his goals are penalties (5 pens + 5 open play) and he’s clearly not helping Chelsea control games.
Is 5 goals impressive based on Chelsea being poor or are Chelsea being poor because they lack control in his position?
He's been pretty good and probably their best player...just probably not so good that City would be willing to buy him back for £90m quid, as @GutBucket would have you believe.I haven’t seen much of Chelsea this year beyond the banter stuff so how good is Palmer?
From what I’ve seen his stats look good but on a closer look half of his goals are penalties (5 pens + 5 open play) and he’s clearly not helping Chelsea control games.
Is 5 goals impressive based on Chelsea being poor or are Chelsea being poor because they lack control in his position?
In brief: clubs are supposed to limit losses to £15m over a rolling three year period but the limit can be raised to £105m if the owners put the difference (up to £90m) into the club in the form of share capital not loans.Another question I have - have the Chelsea owners put any of their own money into the club since the acquisition?
If I recall the rules correctly, owners are entitled to make up for some losses by injecting additional capital.
It would not be enough to cover all of the losses, but again, if they are in a mitigating strategy, I can see them putting more money into the club to limit the penalty.
That's a once every 3 year thing too I guess?In brief: clubs are supposed to limit losses to £15m over a rolling three year period but the limit can be raised to £105m if the owners put the difference (up to £90m) into the club in the form of share capital not loans.
It's £30m per year.That's a once every 3 year thing too I guess?
When you have already invested billions, adding another £100m to protect the investment is a no-brainer...In brief: clubs are supposed to limit losses to £15m over a rolling three year period but the limit can be raised to £105m if the owners put the difference (up to £90m) into the club in the form of share capital not loans.
He is at 91 percentile when it comes to progresssive passes, that's elite. Maddison is at 95 and Odegaard 94. And he's playing for a mid table team that doesn't have real identity yet. He is just consistently good like the other 2. Definitely worth way more than 60m as @McFlash would have you believeI haven’t seen much of Chelsea this year beyond the banter stuff so how good is Palmer?
From what I’ve seen his stats look good but on a closer look half of his goals are penalties (5 pens + 5 open play) and he’s clearly not helping Chelsea control games.
Is 5 goals impressive based on Chelsea being poor or are Chelsea being poor because they lack control in his position?
Cheers. Same diff then. Good good. They're properly screwed.It's £30m per year.
I was only joking mate.He is at 91 percentile when it comes to progresssive passes, that's elite. Maddison is at 95 and Odegaard 94. And he's playing for a mid table team that doesn't have real identity yet. He is just consistently good like the other 2. Definitely worth way more than 60m as @McFlash would have you believe
On this one topic, I feel a modicum of respect has to go to the new owners.
When they took charge they had the books examined, found problems, immediately referred themselves to the relevant body. Todd and Co have done this bit by the books, not immediately lawyered up and tried to fight it.
I'd hope they take that into consideration when compared to City and whatever punishment they receive.
If any.