2022/2023 English Premier League

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by d_phaneuf

Spurs draw at the bridge looks below average now

Spurs didn’t play well at all in that game, yet got something out of it. That is a good sign (bad sign). I know, there were a whole lot of other issues in that game - dodgy officiating, etc. But a result is a result.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well they always raise their game against us, so it's not really surprising. Speaking of which...tomorrow is the West Ham cup final, so hopefully we turn up.

Over the past 20 years, probably more, it is Spurs that have had to raise THEIR game to get anything against Chelsea. The notion of Chelsea raising their game against Spurs is laughable.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Spurs didn’t play well at all in that game, yet got something out of it. That is a good sign (bad sign). I know, there were a whole lot of other issues in that game - dodgy officiating, etc. But a result is a result.

Ya I agree, just meant moreso on how chelsea have looked since

And just to add to your point to slava, chelsea used to call it three point lane... ans they werent wrong

[Slava]

Originally Posted by d_phaneuf

Ya I agree, just meant moreso on how chelsea have looked since

And just to add to your point to slava, chelsea used to call it three point lane... ans they werent wrong

At least a chunk of the reason they've looked worse is because of the loss of Kante.

But the thing with Chelsea is they're just that team that's forever caused us issues. We have had plenty of times where we "should" win, but they end up scoring worldies or just generally coming out better. They haven't always been better than us.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Fofana to Chelsea done, I guess that should help them.

[devo22]

lineup looks solid once Gvardiol joins too.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1564665768079499265

should be Azpilicueta instead of Dumfries, but still lol.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Fofana to Chelsea done, I guess that should help them.

I don't really get the FFP rules and how they work. Assuming Chelsea lands Gvardiol (who apparently they have a deal for 90m and are loaning him back), they've got a net spend this summer of about 300m. How can they do this and remain within the regulations? The only player of note that they've sold is Werner and that was only ~22m. I know that the rules are barely enforced or seemingly have no teeth, but I'm still curious to know what the situation is there.

I still can't figure out how that 1.5bn that the club owed Roman was dealt with, but it seems like "they" just let that slide and the free-spending at Chelsea continues.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't really get the FFP rules and how they work. Assuming Chelsea lands Gvardiol (who apparently they have a deal for 90m and are loaning him back), they've got a net spend this summer of about 300m. How can they do this and remain within the regulations? The only player of note that they've sold is Werner and that was only ~22m. I know that the rules are barely enforced or seemingly have no teeth, but I'm still curious to know what the situation is there.

I still can't figure out how that 1.5bn that the club owed Roman was dealt with, but it seems like "they" just let that slide and the free-spending at Chelsea continues.

The money doesn't get charged to their account when it is spent. Rarely will a large transfer fee be paid in full up front, and even when it is, the accounting "charge" is spread out over the length of the contract. For example, if a player signs for a £50 million transfer fee and a salary of £5 million per year for five years, they would "charge" £15 million per year for five years to the accounts. Just divide the transfer fee by the amount of years a player is signing for, then add in the salary per year.

There are numerous legal loopholes you can exploit. Under normal FFF rules, a club is limited to a 71% spend on player and agent fees, meaning all transfer fees, salaries, bonuses, and player agent fees combined. However, if a club can show long term financial stability, they are allowed to exceed these numbers and stay within the rules. It was really interesting to see how Newcastle navigated the FFF system when it was obvious for years that they were trying to get bought by the Saudi pension fund. Their goal was to stay in the Premier League without spending any money, which allowed them to stay profitable for five straight years. This will allow the new owners to go nuts the way Manchester City and PSG did when they were taken over.

Chelsea are a bit of a special case because there were no rules when Ambramovich took the club over. All of those outstanding "loans" have been written off as he has forgiven them. I suspect a deal was cut to compensate him but this is a bit like the CFL, where it can be hard to prove salary cap violations. For example, the Stampeders could hook a player up with $2500 apartment and only charge him $500 to live there. Is that extra $2000 a month counted against the salary cap? No, but extremely hard to prove if everyone keeps their mouth shut.

I think Chelsea received £22 million for Werner and sold Emerson for £15 million to West Ham, but the salaries coming off the books are also taken into account. Ross Barkley just had his contract cancelled. Big earners like Rudiger, Christiansen, Miazga, and Danny Drinkwater all left the club this off season and due to the clauses in FFF that give credit for shedding salary, this is what has allowed them to spend so much this summer.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

The money doesn't get charged to their account when it is spent. Rarely will a large transfer fee be paid in full up front, and even when it is, the accounting "charge" is spread out over the length of the contract. For example, if a player signs for a £50 million transfer fee and a salary of £5 million per year for five years, they would "charge" £15 million per year for five years to the accounts. Just divide the transfer fee by the amount of years a player is signing for, then add in the salary per year.

There are numerous legal loopholes you can exploit. Under normal FFF rules, a club is limited to a 71% spend on player and agent fees, meaning all transfer fees, salaries, bonuses, and player agent fees combined. However, if a club can show long term financial stability, they are allowed to exceed these numbers and stay within the rules. It was really interesting to see how Newcastle navigated the FFF system when it was obvious for years that they were trying to get bought by the Saudi pension fund. Their goal was to stay in the Premier League without spending any money, which allowed them to stay profitable for five straight years. This will allow the new owners to go nuts the way Manchester City and PSG did when they were taken over.

Chelsea are a bit of a special case because there were no rules when Ambramovich took the club over. All of those outstanding "loans" have been written off as he has forgiven them. I suspect a deal was cut to compensate him but this is a bit like the CFL, where it can be hard to prove salary cap violations. For example, the Stampeders could hook a player up with $2500 apartment and only charge him $500 to live there. Is that extra $2000 a month counted against the salary cap? No, but extremely hard to prove if everyone keeps their mouth shut.

I think Chelsea received £22 million for Werner and sold Emerson for £15 million to West Ham, but the salaries coming off the books are also taken into account. Ross Barkley just had his contract cancelled. Big earners like Rudiger, Christiansen, Miazga, and Danny Drinkwater all left the club this off season and due to the clauses in FFF that give credit for shedding salary, this is what has allowed them to spend so much this summer.

Right, and I know that they can amortize the expenses through the years. But Newcastle couldn't spend as much as people would've thought because of FFP. There was a piece with Eddie Howe talking about that earlier this summer and how everyone thought they'd be able to running around cutting cheques and it wasn't the case.

And as far as Roman just forgiving the loan, that definitely isn't allowable. An owner can't just lend money to the club and then forgive it and everything is cool. Can you imagine the ramifications when you have countries owning these teams? I mean sure, we all know that City and Newcastle are going to spend wildly as it is, but if there was virtually no limit because they could just forgive the "loan" it would be much, much worse.

[Locke]

Ah yes, the Ham Derby! To determine which team is Hammiest!

[MegaErtz]

Chelsea's loan forgiveness is being grandfathered in because most of the loans go back to 2003, long before the FFF rules came into place.

Newcastle have spent £123 million so far this summer in transfer fees alone to bring in Targett, Botman, Pope, and Isak. That doesn't include any signing bonuses, agent fees, or salaries. The only player they've sold for a fee is Freddie Woodman, a backup goalkeeper they flogged to Preston for next to nothing.

Their shirt sponsorship is worth £7.5m a season, but the Saudis also own Noon, so they could conceivably pump up revenues substantially by other shady accounting tricks, like calling the stadium "Noon.com Field at St. James' Park and paying themselves a pretty penny for the naming rights. They're taking a long term approach to major investment, but make no mistake, they're headed into an arms war with Abu Dhabi/Manchester City. Once they can start selling academy players every summer for big money the way the other big clubs do, there will be almost no stopping them.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Chelsea's loan forgiveness is being grandfathered in because most of the loans go back to 2003, long before the FFF rules came into place.

Newcastle have spent £123 million so far this summer in transfer fees alone to bring in Targett, Botman, Pope, and Isak. That doesn't include any signing bonuses, agent fees, or salaries. The only player they've sold for a fee is Freddie Woodman, a backup goalkeeper they flogged to Preston for next to nothing.

Their shirt sponsorship is worth £7.5m a season, but the Saudis also own Noon, so they could conceivably pump up revenues substantially by other shady accounting tricks, like calling the stadium "Noon.com Field at St. James' Park and paying themselves a pretty penny for the naming rights. They're taking a long term approach to major investment, but make no mistake, they're headed into an arms war with Abu Dhabi/Manchester City. Once they can start selling academy players every summer for big money the way the other big clubs do, there will be almost no stopping them.

Isn't that how City ran afoul of the FFP rules?

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Isn't that how City ran afoul of the FFP rules?

Yes, exactly. They were caught financially doping by inflating their revenues through sponsorships from other entities they control. The issue is that it is very hard to prove, but Manchester City didn't even try to hide it. When they were caught (the third time) they agreed to pay UEFA a "fine" and avoided being kicked out of European competitions.

Newcastle have learned from Manchester City and realized that there's no rush to build a quality side overnight. I think we can all agree that they're on course for at least a mid-table finish this season. If they can increase their revenues slowly and steadily over the next few years, there's nothing stopping them from spending £100m+ every summer.

[The Big Chill]

The sky blue pixels are really good

[Senator Clay Davis]

Haaland is making a run at 50 isn't he?

[MegaErtz]

It depends how Pep decides to manage his minutes. I suspect he will start at least the first four group matches in the Champions League, which leads me to believe he'll be rested for the weekend matches. If he was to play all 38, there's no doubt in my mind he'd hit fifty.

[Senator Clay Davis]

He might score 50 even if he only plays 25 matches. What a complete freak of nature.

[Locke]

Haaland trying to win the Golden Boot before Christmas...

[White Out 403]

Maybe this is the final piece for the Champions League. The dude is an absolute freak

[SuperMatt18]

If you were building a prototypical striker from scratch it would look a lot like Haaland.

6 goals in what his last 70 minutes now.