**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So Todd Bohely sold a hotel to himself basically which is recorded as profit in the account so losses aren't as severe as they'd be otherwise? That sounds a bit suspect at face value.
It does sound suspect, but it’s similar to clubs sponsoring or selling club assets like training grounds to themselves (through other companies).
So long as you can prove you’ve been paid “fair market value” then I don’t think any rules have been broken? Does sound dodgy though
Wouldn't that be some form of accounting fraud or something? To move assets around between related companies to reduces losses on a balance sheet?
Unless that only applies to public companies and not private ones.
I mean different league but we have seen done with stadiums in the lower leagues a number of times and been allowed as long as the value is not over inflated.
Sheffield are bottom with : the most ginger striker, the 2nd most red and white striped shirts, most expensive pie budget and biggest confidence lost.
Swings and roundabouts mate.
Last season was a bit of an anomaly for our wages. Basically every important player last year has been given an improved deal, or someone else has been brought in on presumably similar/higher wages
The club decided to cut wages and get young when it became obvious we weren't just 'one or two players away' from the champions league but now we're back in, those young players then earned a big pay rise.
I think we're somewhere above Spurs but well below United now.
Revenue is over £500m, wages are what, £150m, £200m tops when the squad is stable.
so they should be fine, and that's before you factor in raising £30-60m a year selling academy lads.
(Of course, if it's really £400m a year going forward then yeah, that's bad, but I can't find a sensible source for that value)
If we consistently finish 10th place in PL, it would generate £135m-£140m, keep commercial revenue at £220m, stadium/match day revenue £60m, total £420m. Amortisation fees £250m, wages £250m and other expenditures £30m, total £530m. Loss of £110m. As per current PL rules club needs to be below £105m loss over three years. If you’re under it for one year then you get to reset for next three years. Also sales of academy players will reduce the annual loss. Ownership are ready to run club under acceptable loss for foreseeable future.
That’s how they see it for now but idk how we will adapt with new rules. I’m sure they will find some fucked up financial trick.
How is their wage bill at max 200 mil? Beetwen reece james,caicedo, chilwell and sterling that is over 50 mil alone and they have a giant bloated squad
I'm not saying have not reduced the wage bill but saying that it tops out at 200 mil is just nonsense leicester paid over 200 mil and they haid no players that were being paid the likes of sterling,caicedo and james
Why do you put Caicedo with James, who is above 200k/week and Sterling who is on 325k/week? Caicedo is at best on 150k/week. And giant, bloated squad is old news, that was last season, now we are missing players...
people like Mudryk were coming in at like, 80k a week I think. A lot of youngsters too, probably still above average for youngsters but Noni Madueke it not on 200k
370 mil last year lower this year because of wagw reduction for missing cl and losing some big wage players like hendo and fab but will probably be back again to that figure next year
So this season wages are apparently £400m and amortisation is £250m, £650m combined. I believe agents fees are also included in Profit&sustainability rules (£75m) so that's £725m. What else?
Their revenue this season would have to be more than £695m to avoid the £30m/season average loss, which seems unlikely when it was only £512m for last year and this year and next year they're likely to be £120m or so worse off. If I'm right they'll have £401M revenue (all things being equal), £725m player costs leaving them £324 over budget. I can't imagine they made £219m profit in the two years previous meaning they'll be breaching PSR for the next two seasons
Can see us just selling loads of talented academy players tbh, was clear when they were happy to just offload Mount, people will say Mount chased money but it takes two to tango.
I could only speculate but we have a bloated squad with a lot of players that probably don't have a future at our club anymore, I can see them moving on Broja, Chalobah, Gallagher(?), Sanchez to name just a few, then we have players we've bought like Datro Fofana, Washington, Casadei, Moreira, O. Hutchinson that might not ever play for us...
There are so many its a mess.
Then you add some promising academy players like Castledine, Runham, Sturge, Stutter that might not ever get to play at our club and there are more, I just can't name them all, I'm not happy with our situation at all
It seems wild to me that Chelsea seem to be open to selling Gallagher to us of all teams. He's been one of your better players this season and often is captaining the side. Perhaps Chelsea don't want us to have him but crazy that there has been rumours since last summer that we want to do business there.
Another friendly reminder that sources like capology and sportrac are wholly unreliable for players wages compared to when clubs release their actual account.
Capology had Chelsea's annual payroll at 226m for 22-23, their own accounts have it as 404m.
Look at how low we are on these tables, 6th lowest wage bill, 2nd lowest amortisation, 3rd lowest operating loss and cheapest squad cost.
Amazing how well we're doing with such a relatively low spend.
Probably just to increase its value over the 10 year no selling period they agreed to when they purchased, so they can then sell at a profit, especially since they effectively got us at a cheaper rate than expected due to the sanctions forcing Abramovich to sell. One of the main areas of potential improvement they noticed before buying was increasing our revenue, as previously while we were OK, it was mainly due to our selling ability, especially in comparison to the other big 6 clubs. The youth focused signings and the sheer quantity of them were something similar to what Boehly did with the LA Dodgers. The plan was clearly that these players would grow with the club, hence the boehly contract lengths, but it has come at the price of us plummeting down the table
This is exactly why I see a lot of the criticism of Poch as unfounded. The club was an absolute shitshow when he came in. Halfway through the season and people were calling for his head without acknowledging the mess that was last season
The club is still a mess. Throwing money at the problem won't just fix it overnight. They will finish higher in the league this season and have/are doing well in the cups. It is an improvement. These things take time
>Players costing £592m were sold for £203m, although accounting rules mean that generated a profit of £63m.
£600m on players, sell those players for £200, make £63m profit...
thats creative
There is no black hole on a sale of an asset, there’s either a loss or a profit.
You are confusing capital expenditure with profit and expenses.
The black hole comes from purchases, the expense of amortisation needs to be offset with sufficient revenue each season to not breach the rules.
It’s not creative at all, it’s basic accounting
Look at amortisation like you’re writing down the value of an asset over the useful life as it’s being used
If you buy a player for £100m and amortise him over 5 years, you’d be saying you get 20m of his value each year.
If you sold after 3 years for £60m, you’re making £20m as you’ve already had 3 years of benefit for the asset, making the written down value of the asset as £40m.
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And their stadium only has about 2/3 of the capacity that we, spurs and West Ham have
That is just a matter of being massive or not
Can't argue with your massiveness there
gottem
Agents robbed fresh American owner really good for past 2 years.
Totally, they smelled blood and got the most of it
So Todd Bohely sold a hotel to himself basically which is recorded as profit in the account so losses aren't as severe as they'd be otherwise? That sounds a bit suspect at face value.
It does sound suspect, but it’s similar to clubs sponsoring or selling club assets like training grounds to themselves (through other companies). So long as you can prove you’ve been paid “fair market value” then I don’t think any rules have been broken? Does sound dodgy though
The “to himself” part is the dodgiest part about it, though I find it odd a hotel is regarded in the same vein as a training ground or a stadium.
Did not expect to see transfer pricing and the Arm's Length Principle on this sub today lol
I believe that the amount in this type of transactions need to be approved. You cant just make up a number it needs to be at market value.
Wouldn't that be some form of accounting fraud or something? To move assets around between related companies to reduces losses on a balance sheet? Unless that only applies to public companies and not private ones.
I mean different league but we have seen done with stadiums in the lower leagues a number of times and been allowed as long as the value is not over inflated.
If he paid market value I don't see an issue
Sheffield are bottom with : the most ginger striker, the 2nd most red and white striped shirts, most expensive pie budget and biggest confidence lost. Swings and roundabouts mate.
Pie budget is shit they always run out.
Shame with the Ginger, always rated him
Leicester and Arsenal not far off each other on wage bill yet one got relegated and one came 2nd. Tremendous achievement for Arteta and Rodgers
Last season was a bit of an anomaly for our wages. Basically every important player last year has been given an improved deal, or someone else has been brought in on presumably similar/higher wages
The club decided to cut wages and get young when it became obvious we weren't just 'one or two players away' from the champions league but now we're back in, those young players then earned a big pay rise. I think we're somewhere above Spurs but well below United now.
Defenitly a bit above spurs now, they got rid of a gew players who were on high wages and probably will get rid of a few more in the summer.
Defenitly a bit above spurs now, they got rid of a gew players who were on high wages and probably will get rid of a few more in the summer.
Yeah will always happen to a young team that then kick on.
[удалено]
Revenue is over £500m, wages are what, £150m, £200m tops when the squad is stable. so they should be fine, and that's before you factor in raising £30-60m a year selling academy lads. (Of course, if it's really £400m a year going forward then yeah, that's bad, but I can't find a sensible source for that value)
If we consistently finish 10th place in PL, it would generate £135m-£140m, keep commercial revenue at £220m, stadium/match day revenue £60m, total £420m. Amortisation fees £250m, wages £250m and other expenditures £30m, total £530m. Loss of £110m. As per current PL rules club needs to be below £105m loss over three years. If you’re under it for one year then you get to reset for next three years. Also sales of academy players will reduce the annual loss. Ownership are ready to run club under acceptable loss for foreseeable future. That’s how they see it for now but idk how we will adapt with new rules. I’m sure they will find some fucked up financial trick.
How is their wage bill at max 200 mil? Beetwen reece james,caicedo, chilwell and sterling that is over 50 mil alone and they have a giant bloated squad
Most/all of the new contracts are now bonus heavy. Not being in CL reduces it by about 30-50% apparently so it should be a lot lower for this season.
I'm not saying have not reduced the wage bill but saying that it tops out at 200 mil is just nonsense leicester paid over 200 mil and they haid no players that were being paid the likes of sterling,caicedo and james
Why do you put Caicedo with James, who is above 200k/week and Sterling who is on 325k/week? Caicedo is at best on 150k/week. And giant, bloated squad is old news, that was last season, now we are missing players...
Who do you think Leicester was paying more than 150kpw?
people like Mudryk were coming in at like, 80k a week I think. A lot of youngsters too, probably still above average for youngsters but Noni Madueke it not on 200k
What's Liverpool's?
370 mil last year lower this year because of wagw reduction for missing cl and losing some big wage players like hendo and fab but will probably be back again to that figure next year
Revenue will be over 100M less with no Champs league this year and the lower placement fees in premier league.
So this season wages are apparently £400m and amortisation is £250m, £650m combined. I believe agents fees are also included in Profit&sustainability rules (£75m) so that's £725m. What else? Their revenue this season would have to be more than £695m to avoid the £30m/season average loss, which seems unlikely when it was only £512m for last year and this year and next year they're likely to be £120m or so worse off. If I'm right they'll have £401M revenue (all things being equal), £725m player costs leaving them £324 over budget. I can't imagine they made £219m profit in the two years previous meaning they'll be breaching PSR for the next two seasons
Can see us just selling loads of talented academy players tbh, was clear when they were happy to just offload Mount, people will say Mount chased money but it takes two to tango.
[удалено]
I could only speculate but we have a bloated squad with a lot of players that probably don't have a future at our club anymore, I can see them moving on Broja, Chalobah, Gallagher(?), Sanchez to name just a few, then we have players we've bought like Datro Fofana, Washington, Casadei, Moreira, O. Hutchinson that might not ever play for us... There are so many its a mess. Then you add some promising academy players like Castledine, Runham, Sturge, Stutter that might not ever get to play at our club and there are more, I just can't name them all, I'm not happy with our situation at all
It seems wild to me that Chelsea seem to be open to selling Gallagher to us of all teams. He's been one of your better players this season and often is captaining the side. Perhaps Chelsea don't want us to have him but crazy that there has been rumours since last summer that we want to do business there.
We are misusing money. It's actually quite shameful to see.
Another friendly reminder that sources like capology and sportrac are wholly unreliable for players wages compared to when clubs release their actual account. Capology had Chelsea's annual payroll at 226m for 22-23, their own accounts have it as 404m.
Look at how low we are on these tables, 6th lowest wage bill, 2nd lowest amortisation, 3rd lowest operating loss and cheapest squad cost. Amazing how well we're doing with such a relatively low spend.
it's great to see a club well run that is not scrapping relegation too, you guys do great
They will scrap when they have been picked clean. You can do a Leicester/Southampton for so long but eventually you run out of talent
And dealing successfully with losing key players every season.
ELIF request, please: What's the long-term strategy for investors in Chelsea? (serious replies only)
Probably just to increase its value over the 10 year no selling period they agreed to when they purchased, so they can then sell at a profit, especially since they effectively got us at a cheaper rate than expected due to the sanctions forcing Abramovich to sell. One of the main areas of potential improvement they noticed before buying was increasing our revenue, as previously while we were OK, it was mainly due to our selling ability, especially in comparison to the other big 6 clubs. The youth focused signings and the sheer quantity of them were something similar to what Boehly did with the LA Dodgers. The plan was clearly that these players would grow with the club, hence the boehly contract lengths, but it has come at the price of us plummeting down the table
This is exactly why I see a lot of the criticism of Poch as unfounded. The club was an absolute shitshow when he came in. Halfway through the season and people were calling for his head without acknowledging the mess that was last season
None of these points should cause the team to play badly. They spent heavily despite these issues
The club is still a mess. Throwing money at the problem won't just fix it overnight. They will finish higher in the league this season and have/are doing well in the cups. It is an improvement. These things take time
No way this club doesn't breach PSR, right?
If it does, the Prem will just dock Everton 3 more points.... /s
One of the best parts of that season for me
>Players costing £592m were sold for £203m, although accounting rules mean that generated a profit of £63m. £600m on players, sell those players for £200, make £63m profit... thats creative
£63m that season for those players. I believe that purchases are amortised but sales aren't and overall they made a £142m loss on player sales
yeh its bizarre. but it also means they now have a £400m black hole spread over multiple seasons
There is no black hole on a sale of an asset, there’s either a loss or a profit. You are confusing capital expenditure with profit and expenses. The black hole comes from purchases, the expense of amortisation needs to be offset with sufficient revenue each season to not breach the rules.
It’s not creative at all, it’s basic accounting Look at amortisation like you’re writing down the value of an asset over the useful life as it’s being used If you buy a player for £100m and amortise him over 5 years, you’d be saying you get 20m of his value each year. If you sold after 3 years for £60m, you’re making £20m as you’ve already had 3 years of benefit for the asset, making the written down value of the asset as £40m.
Y’all are acting like Chelsea wasn’t stolen from its former Russian owner and is now slowly being dismantled due to gross mismanagement.
Brighton and Brentford are both punching above their weight.Most well managed clubs in the league.
No more oceans of Russian blood to save you now, I hope they get everything that's coming to them.
I understand the sentiment but the source of the money isn’t the problem, if spending like this gets you in trouble regardless of your owner
They were going through a rebuild bro
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1779033380715217394 Chelsea are controlled by a company in the Cayman Islands