Well it is just as quick as using whatsapp and quicker than email, also probably for legal reason involved

​@@benishben4364 quicker than email?

In hindsight though, the De Gea fiasco seems more and more like a Man Utd plot to keep him. Using a fax machine isn’t really an issue; not using it in time IS. The tech behind a fax machine really isn’t an issue.

it's surprising to me how widely fax is still used for really formal documents

Fax works just like email anyway.

Yes, baseball does provide a lot of pointers for professional football.

If the player underperforms, clauses in their contracts reduce their salaries making them easier to sell.

​@@danielorji2309 doubtful if ever in the player contract. Most likely their performance bonuses get cut if they didnt make the ucl . The players wage will remain untouched unless somehow they get relegated 😂.

I was just about to say the same thing

@@hungchoonghow5857 it’s still a professional sporting contract. I really shouldn’t imagine they’re that different.

You wish

A lot depends on whether Potter can get these kids to gel and play consistently. If he does, could be great if not it could go very wrong very fast.

*6 months from now. That's as long as any Chelsea signing has before he's trashed by the fans. Even if they win a champions league, it doesn't mean a thing

Love to see the hate 💙. We thrive from this, keep hating and we’ll keep having success and get trophies. Business as usual

@@albertonicolae9270 and *buy* trophies

Probably had to do with most of the financial focus in the eastern bloc being on east Germany and the Soviet Union but idk Video would be interesting

Fall of socialism

i think alfie @hitcsevens will be a able to give you a detailed explanation if you ask

All their good players are in RB Leipzig lol, Orban, Szoboszlai and Gulacsi.

The eastern bloc affect

Already being done. Strasbourg in France, looking for a Portuguese team as well

Trying to create an artificial leverage by buying a feeder club to offload their unwanted stars. Hopefully uefa put a banhammer on this which sadly they don't.

@@kamrangreen1202 Aren't Strasbourg part of City group

And Benfica are quite the club given they signed him for €18m and five months later sold him for north of €120m. Great play from Rui Costa.

​@@DJLDominohe cost Benfica 44 million not 18

​@@MainsMainno, he costed 18 million at the time, the rest were paid with his transfer to chelsea because they had 20 or 25% sell on value on him

No they're not. All the player's transfer fees in the squad are amortised. As players are sold or finish their initial contracts, they are paid off in the books, meaning new players can be bought. Amortising 8 or so players over an extra 3 years will have a negligible effect overall.

That’s why the top players being brought in are young players that are seen as important players for the spine of the club which needed to happen, reminds me of early on when Chelsea signed the likes of drogba, lampard etc

@@InvaderZim742 it could potentially have an effect if they sell a player before their contract ends as any player they sell will have a higher book value due to the slower amortisation of their fees. That will hit their p&l so could potentially result in them recording a bigger loss for any year in which they sell one or more of these players.

That last part describes Juventus very well

Also *crucially* (and this was in the video we all just watched), their wages are very reasonable. This means that they will be easy to move on if they flop and is quite unlike the example you gave of veteran signings who leave you stuck with a high earning underperformer who you can’t move on to another club. Plenty of clubs would be happy for a half-baked mudryk at only 97k/week if he never reaches his potential

It’s never worth listening to Simon Jordan.

They wish bad on Chelsea always. Remember when they said Chelsea would get liquidated after Roman? 😂😂😂😂

If u are the last one to take the exploit then it gets closed. It's a genius

@@danpreston564 Maybe not always for the football side of things but his business knowledge is spot on. Have a listen to what he says. The vids on KZfaq.

Bro said Simon Jordan 😂😂😂

Are we talking about Gary Ablett Jr?

You don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, 7 year contracts were given to players under Abramovich's ownership. Secondly, no you wouldn't have expected PSG/City to employ Chelsea's current policy of 7 and 8 year contracts because neither PSG or City had a similar transfer policy as this. PSG or City have never had a transfer policy of focusing the bulk of their transfers on 18, 19, 20, 21, yr old players from around the world. If Chelsea were signing 25, 26, 27, 28, yr old players then obviously they wouldn't be giving 7 and 8 yr contracts either. And just how pathetic is it for people to complain & whinge because Chelsea have done what they've done & they're fully compliant with the rules of the game?

I think todd knows more than you

@@tompalegend Know is one thing. And nail it is another. It is still a high risk move. The new players bring in must perform well.

@@catchnkill lets wait and see when you will cry later

@@tompalegend No need to wait. When the season ends, you will have two players to offload with not so long contracts, Lukaku and Auba. See how it goes. This is what I call risk. It is there. Players can play poorly and lose his market value.

Spread what cost? Chelsea haven't spread any cost. Chelsea haven't done anything differently to how they've always done things. Chelsea, like most clubs, normally pay transfer fees in three annual installments & that's exactly what they've done with their recent signings. Like so many people you are confusing player contracts with paying transfer fees. Some of Chelsea's very young signings have been given 7 & 8 year contracts. This is a completely separate thing to paying the transfer fees.

The contract for the sale of the club dictated they can't take dividends for 10 years. It's a very long term vision. They are not aiming to turn a profit through player sales, They are aiming to raise revenue via commercial, matchday and broadcasting. The way to do that is to win on the pitch.

@@InvaderZim742 I don’t think they’ll do any of that. Chelsea’s stadium isn’t anything compared to the new Spurs stadium. They’ll struggle to turn a profit then get sanctioned. 39 players on their books. Boehly tried to monopolise the transfer market. You see in the states most sports have one dominant league so you get a player. There’s not many places they can go if they’re an up and coming talent. Means players don’t down tools. Here. Whilst some clubs can’t afford the transfer fees, they certainly can afford the wages. So players down tools for 4/5 seasons. Chelsea loses a stupid amount of money. Then they leave for free.

@@InvaderZim742 Chelsea's matchday and commercial revenue growth is hampered by the size of Stamford Bridge. There's no room to redevelop it so if they want to grow that they need a new stadium, that's another £1-2 billion. UK TV rights values have stalled, so they're hoping the US ones do the heavy lifting. And that ignores that player sales were a crucial part of Chelsea's business model under Abramovich, and even they made losses almost every season.

@@HamishNZ119 you're clearly not a Chelsea supporter if you don't know that plans to rebuilt the stadium are already well underway and it was a condition of the sale. The whole point of the new approach is to change the business model and grow revenue to be less reliant on player sales.

@@ossiaigbedo7223 😂 What's to stop any player at any other club on a 5 year contract downing tools? Also, As stated. If they down tools and the club underperforms. Their wages get cut. This anti Chelsea logic is assanine. The are building a new stadium over the next few years. They currently have 32 players on the books for this reason. And it will be even less come the start of next season. Maybe do some research on the topic before opening your mouth next time.

Chelsea have the best client journalists to clear their name

Nagelsmann in the summer let's hope

He won't arrive until summer of 2023 when the current season ends.

No. Provided they can cover the cost of these transfer in their accounts they can carry on signing players. Effectively, they have increased the "running cost" for the club.

Yhe if not we get High income from winning things, i think Chelsea Pay 70 mil for alla new players for 7 year. And and they count in a 3 year cycle ffp, so 210 mil - each cycle, but You can have a loss of 110 mil each cycle.

It was already the plan to sell players in the summer anyway. No club will spend 8 years with the same squad.

With the reported loss of 120mil last season and the lack of champions league money for next season; I don’t see how they will make further signings without selling when they have an amortized debts of £600mil already on their books already. The idea is good from the board is good but the planning and execution is a mess. Imagine spending €100mil on mudryk; a player you have to still develop whilst spending approx €100mil on sterling and mudueke and also having wingers like Ziyech and pulisic you can still count on at least until the end of the season. The squad building from this Chelsea board is a mess and has a very high probability of failure and that will be disastrous for their long term success. Let’s see how many players they can move on in the summer.

Prime Barca and 3 peat Madrid had both.

@@nightking8490 and psg and Chelsea dont

@@ek6352 how would you know? Chelsea won the champions league with good players, but not great players. Everything i've heard says the atmosphere in the dressing room is very good, chemistry will take time to create. These players have plenty of time on their side.

​​@@nightking8490 3 peat Madrid 🤔?

​@@johnsontjoseChampions League.

Your direction is the championship mate 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@natsudama4604 I don’t personally gamble but if you’re that confident you should go put some money on it.

Who let the doge out

what’s difficult to believe about buying a player for £106million?

@@miniman2132 cry

Yeah, you waved money and he went. Not really that hard mate

@@ohhimark3691 It is hard when the player's club stubbornly refuse to sell the player. Benfica didn't want the £107m, they preferred to keep the player. It was only when the player himself got involved & became vocal with his demands to be let go that Benfica started relenting.

When have Chelsea ever developed anyone?

@@marcbaigrie2295they have one of the best academy’s in the world 🙃🤡

The cost of their transfer is amortised through their accounts across the length of the players contact, so for example a £100m player over 8 years would add a cost of £12.5m to their costs for each of the next 8 years. There are a few risks with this method. By spreading the costs now it forces the club to continue doing so in the future as if they start recognising the transfer expenses over a shorter timeframe (as they'll have to with future transfers now d'you to the change in uefas rules) it makes the expense burden in future years higher whilst only benefiting in a reduced expense burden in the short term. When a player is sold you can recognise all of the income from the transfer in full. If you come to sell a player and they're still within the amortisation window you have to recognise the remaining cost of the asset disposal at the point of sale, if the player has dropped in value this could be hugely negative and essentially trap the player at the club. For example, a £100m sold 2 years in to their 8 year contract will still hold a value of £75m in the accounts. If that player is sold for £60m then rather than recognising £75m income, as you would with a player that's fully amortised, you instead have to recognise a £15m loss. As you'd likely want to buy a new player to replace the old player you can see how this will have a knock on effect for the transfer budget / ffp. Added to that risk, if you can't sell an underperforming player you'll have to tank their amortisation expense on top of any other expenses every year until their contract expires. In my example you end up absorbing that £12.5m expense on top of the players wages. Now, for one player that might not be too bad but Chelsea have done this with most of the players they bought this year. If more of them fail than succeed at the club then Chelsea are likely to struggle to make a profit in the future, it'll be in about 3-5 years time this will hurt them if things go wrong. They might have some serious FFP problems.

they're ruining football, there's a lot wrong with it

@@davidsoup1738 Football has long been ruined. Chelsea didn't start the Galactico era. They're riding the wave like every other Saudi backed club.

Their contracts are guaranteed. Why would they accept turfed out for a pay cut? Winston Bogarde didn't

Even if they are guaranteed if they are not successful at chelsea then those contracts will hurt there chances of a fresh start elsewhere. Also with such long contracts no need to give them an improved wage just feels like they have been poorly adviced.

Liverpool and arsenal

Chelsea and Man City have already been punished by FFP , so lets be real lol

@@obpihhipbo888 Chelsea haven't been punished by FFP. Current charges are against Man City and Everton

@@ebnest123 remember the tranfer ban during lampard manager era?

​@@pramuzainsan that wasn't for FFP that was for signing underage players

@@veryscarygoat which is under Fifa Financial Play

Revenues would have increased.

The point of spreading out the cost in this way is to give a more accurate picture of the clubs profitability in any given year. If clubs (or any company really, amortisation is not football specific) were allowed to take the full cost of investments in year one then they'd suddenly become far more profitable in year 2, 3,4 etc until another round of investment was needed. So the clubs accounts in those years would be extremely misleading, you'd think the club was doing great but actually it could only keep delivering results if somebody spent hundreds of millions to replace ageing players. I think a better way to think of amortisation is as the amount of money the club would need to take out of its profit each year in order to make future investments to keep the club performing at the same level. By the way if clubs did take the full transfer cost in the year the player is signed it would be far easier to manipulate for FFP - you could delay signing a £100m player by one day in order to take his cost in the following years accounts. Same for any idea of using when cash payments are made as the basis of the accounts , you would simply do a deal to pay the selling club a day/year/years later in order to put the cost in a year that's more convenient for you. e.g you could pay Benfica 200m for Enzo but say you will pay in 5 years time, that sort of thing.

It's a fairly common accounting practice...Chelsea has signed an asset that is valued at 100m, and until they've actually handed over 100m in cash; from an accounting position they are actually in "profit". It may take another 3 years until the par value of the outstanding sum and perceived value of the asset are equal. By that point, they have probably given a new contract, and therefore increased the future sale value of the asset whilst the remaining money owed is less. It's why the likes of United routinely gave out contracts to their deadwood to give an accounting value. The Enzo deal is likely to be seen as a profit throughout his time at Chelsea.

@@marcgains6605 No, when the cash is handed over is almost entirely irrelevant - the liability to pay £100m is created the moment the player is signed so the club are not in profit. They then take a cost of 100m/contract length each year. The "profit" they get is the prize money/broadcasting etc they get from the player being in the squad, that's impossible to separate out though.

@@jkb2819 whilst that's true, what I was referring to, was how they "could" display the book value of the asset - as 100m, whilst it's a depreciating asset against the upcoming liability of say 20m due to the amortization of the transfer fe. That is where in accounting terms it absolutely could be seen as a profit if the asset posted is more than the liabilities for that accounting period. It would be seen as a profit for that year...whereas for FFP they will be looking over a 5 year period where it will balance out...which of course doesn't take into consideration any sales over that time; that will be reported as income on the balance sheet.

yes exactly, i was wondering if anyone else was going to point this out. how pathetic to send an email with the wrong attachment, the kind of mistake an intern would make. boehly has no idea what he's doing. i see a glazers/man u kind of crisis unfolding...

@@dedede9664 exactly mate, too much focus is on these ridiculous signings which for does not deserve any praise to cheat based on a loop hole. So much for being a fair league i guess

@@olivermorning4945 Why enquire at the last moment then.

as opposed to city united, arsenal and liverpool all getting their players for free? oh wait nevermind, they all spent billions too.

Enzo already is guaranteed quality?

Most of these signings have already panned out albeit early days. Enzo, Badiashile, Wesley Fofana. They just need a good manager

and we hope you upload a video of yourself crying when they all succeed. Most of them are already looking great.

@@InvaderZim742 chill man it was tongue in cheek and I didn’t say they were bad signings. Just think it would be funny if we had another one of those videos. Notice how I said the Chelsea board are shrewd.

@@InvaderZim742 not looking good

​@@InvaderZim742 looking great losing 4-1 huh 😂😂😂😂

I think it's fairly obvious that the players are earning exorbitant amounts. Per week is fine.

Just multiply by 52?

I'm certain they have weeks outside of the UK.

There’s 52 weeks in a year all over the world mate

All salaries are mentioned in weeks for footballer. Changing it to annually will be even more confusing.

Madueke is insanely injury prone Mudryk looks worse than Pepe when he joined Arsenal Chelsea aren't the club to give them 2 seasons to try and come good

@@00dude3Has Madueke been injured at Chelsea? Also this new ownership is prioritizing the development of young players? Mudryk has been poor tbf

And Man City insisted they wouldn’t pay that high price for him. Why? Because their talented staff know what they’re looking at

@@00dude3 Mudryk looks great. He’s quite raw, but is oozing potential. Pepe was literally never that amazing in Ligue 1. Arsenal’s fault for grossly overpaying for a fairly limited player. The bigger talent in the French league at that time was Malcom

@@xavier1752 Im certain Mudryk has more potential then Pepe, but all we know is that Mudryk has shown very VERY little of that potential except against a 60 year old James Milner. My hope is that Chelsea don’t learn from the mistake of buying a player for £80million who isn’t yet the finished article. Those transfer fees should be reserved for players who are everything they need to be at the moment they touch down, because Mudryk doesn’t seem like he’s handling his price tag well. He’s got at TikTok, though.

That move was crazy. Did they want or not want to loan him out? Even more bizzare thing happened. Ziyech was used as starting lineup in the immediate game after that saga. So the whole thing is to fool and make fun of PSG!

The team would be way better

Dude really thinks that this sort of throwing money strategy really helps competition in football.

@@ohhimark3691 no. But these rules don't curb excessive spending. Only excessive spending by certain clubs. Barcelona have ludicrous debt but are able to spend but Chelsea have none and come under heavy scrutiny? It's just going to end up with an even more elite dominated world stage.

How about them on our cabinet?

They don't need to. Football last more than one season fella.

it's an absolute mess. it can see it becoming a worse crisis than man united (pre ten hag). compare it to brighton, and it's the complete opposite of how to run a football club

@@dedede9664 They have bought many experienced directors which did great at having good transfers at other clubs. Its only been half year they start working. To become like Brighton, they need few years.

Robert Smith. Chelsea will do what? Isn't it bloody obvious? They will either agree that a wage increase is fully deserved & approve a wage increase but if they don't feel a wage increase would be justified then they will remind the player he is on an eight year contract & therefore all the power is with the club. However, I think it's well known that Chelsea are a club that history shows doesn't tend to have too many wage disputes with their players. This basically stems from the fact that Chelsea are one of the very best payers in the game.

Abrahamovich cleared all debt, other clubs all have some debt already and 8 year contracts can be detrimental especially for unproven players on big wages (mudryk)

probably because of the huge risk of someone turning out to be a dud and being able to just sit on the books for 7 more years

Isn't this was Barcelona was doing?

It's because having contacts that long is absolutely stupid in football. Boehly doesn't understand how football works and is just trying to run Chelsea like an American sports franchise. A couple of years down the line this is going to be disastrous

because it can easily backfire and sink a club for a long time and don't call me Shirley

It’s most definitely risky. Enzo is already looking like one of the best midfielders in the entire league though. Mudryk I am not so sure about I could see that costing us in the future 😭

I would agree on the risk of that happening to certain players, not Enzo though, that guy is devoted to be the best player he can be like no other, and it shows, he looks levels above the rest every time he plays. One would think the scouting network has background into account when choosing which players to go for.

Hristijan Zdravkovski Yes, you are wrong about this. You ask..what would be the incentive for a player to run down his long & well paid contract if he flops'. Well, just ask yourself, how many players in the Premier Lge have you seen do this? How many players who flop in their first, & maybe second, season & who have a 5 year contract have you seen refuse to be sold & instead run down the remaining 3 or 4 years of their well paid contract? Here's a good example: Lukaku signs an extremely well paid 5 year contract with Chelsea. After just one season of where he was a flop, his club, Chelsea, wanted to move him on. No club could afford his transfer fee AND could match his Chelsea wages. So what happened, did he run down the remaining 4 years of his contract & continue to pick up his very lucrative wages? No, he chose to take a big cut in wages & join another club where he could continue playing football. Lukaku could easily have told Chelsea he was refusing to go to another club but instead he would run down the remaining 4 years of his contract. The reality is that it virtually never happens that a player decides he would rather sit in the stands on matchdays & play no football for a few years simply because it is financially beneficial to do so. A professional footballers career is short, the last thing they want is to miss playing for a few years & to do so because of money reasons. I've supported Chelsea for 54 years, since I was 6 years old, & in all that time I can only think of one or two players who stubbornly refused to leave the club & instead insist on running down the remaining years of their contract. One player was Winston Bogarde & he stayed the course & remained at the club right up until the last day of his contract. Another player who threatened to do it & did do it for a short while was Florent Malouda. He made noises about not leaving & running down his contract & for a short while he did. But it didn't take long for him to change his mind & come to his senses. Other than that I'm struggling to think of another Chelsea player who did this. You claim you know of examples where players refused to leave their club & instead ran down the last 4 years of their contracts. It would have been nice if you had given the names of some of these players. Do you REALLY think somebody who is as rare as a Premiership standard football player & who has very probably spent years dreaming of making the big time, would really be prepared to sacrifice as many as 6 or 7 years of his career, sacrifice the prime years of his career, because he won't take a wage cut from, say, £100k per week to £60k per week? If he doesn't play any football for as long as, say, 5 years, then it's very possible it would be the end of his career. Do you REALLY think 99% of footballers would be prepared to do this?

just like 3 years before that, and 3 years before that, and 3 years before that. etc... keep hoping though

Like like Chelsea will get liquidated last year? 😭😂

@@InvaderZim742 I’ve never thought it remotely possible until now. You’re right though I’m sure this approach that no other club has ever thought is a good idea will work out just fine for you.

@@DavidC-fk2wg I'm sure the club will be just fine with an extra £60m a season on the books. Make far more in player sales every season. Thanks for your concern.

Most of their summer signings were. Not winter ones.

Stop comparing two situations that aren’t alike

@stealthiscool -Two big clubs in London -Two clubs that needed new managers -Two clubs that started focusing on youth - Two young managers unproven at the highest level - Arteta started off by taking Arsenal BACKWARDS (from 5th under Emery to 8th) Potter has also gone backwards to start. How are they not alike? Not very smart are you? 🤡 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

​@adamcummins8930 Arteta won silverware in his first season, How's potter doing in that department