Chelsea Banter Archive April 05 2013

05 Apr 2013 23:11:21
Ed, will John Terry be at the club next season? {Ed002's Note - I would think so.}

Ed would he be there even if Mourinho was manager? {Ed002's Note - I have no idea what you are getting at.}

I was just thinking back to reading about an alleged break down in the relationship between Mourinho and Terry around the time that Mourinho and the club separated and went their different ways. Was there an issue between the two of them? {Ed002's Note - It would help me if I was not asked to validate everything people read in the media or on the internet. I really don't have the time to deal with such things all of the time.}

Ok, I understand, sorry Ed. {Ed002's Note - No problem but the page has degenerated in to questions about all the BS that comes up in teh media (Chelsea agree to exchange De Bruyne .... etc.) and I simply do not have the time nor inclination to keep answering questions on such things.}

05 Apr 2013 21:14:39
Is anyone able to find the Chelsea/Man City wembley tickets for sale on the Chelsea website? I am a member and I can't find them anywhere. Its not sold out yet is it?

Also if any member could buy me a ticket I would pay them back :) would love to go to the game!

LRD

You should have some luck on a site called viagogo, if it's not already sold out

05 Apr 2013 16:35:09
Hi ED! You might not want to talk about this sort of thing but apart from investing heavily on young talent, what other plans do the club have to cop with the Fifa Fear Play rules?
Cheers. {Ed002's Note - The Demystification of the Financial Fair Play Rules (FFPR)
Introduction
I will try and simplify and summarise the FFPR and give examples where I can.
Putting aside all of the “mother country” fluff, the fundamental purpose of the FFPR is to:
(1) Ensure that clubs are operating within their means with transparent financial reporting. Example: Arsenal has debt which they can manage from the money they make as a club (good). Anzhi has a very low turnover given the amount of money they spend on players through donations from wealthy owners (bad).
(2) Protect creditors. Example: When Portsmouth went bust they owed money for players (the extreme case being Glen Johnson who had moved to Liverpool but Portsmouth still owed Chelsea for), money to local businesses (tradesmen who had worked at the ground, newsagents etc.), utility companies, the police et al (bad).
(3) Encourage responsible spending. Example: Liverpool under Hicks and Gillett borrowed money against the value of the club in order to buy players (bad).
(4) Protect the long-term viability of European club football. Example: They want to avoid the scenario of clubs entering administration or going out of business.
The FFPR apply to all UEFA club competitions and will actively come in to force from the end of June 2014 taking account of the financial monitoring period (the season just finished) and the two prior reporting periods (the two seasons before that). So when they first start, the FFPR will look at the 2013/2014 returns, and they will give consideration to the 2011/12 and 2012/13 figures.
I should make clear that it is not the full accounts of a club that are being considered, but just the “relevant” income and the “relevant” expenses. “Excluded” expenses are critical to the FFPR calculations. To this end, all clubs will need to effectively produce two sets of accounts. An audited set which are provided to Companies House and the relevant revenue organisations, and a second audited return laying out the “relevant” income and the “relevant” expenses for the purpose of the FFPR.
Relevant Income
(1) Match day gate receipts. Example: The money made by the club from paying fans attending games. This includes income from cup games when played away from home where a proportion of the gate money goes to the away side.
(2) Broadcasting rights. Example: Television income for games, money provided for radio broadcasting.
(3) Income from commercial activities. Example: Sales of bobble hats and rattles, club shop income, licensed income (e.g. DVD sales). In the future you can expect to see income from other media (e.g. streaming of games on a pay-per-view basis to the web and phones) increase.

(4) Prize money. Example: income from the Premier League, Champions League etc..
(5) Sponsorship. Example: Shirt sponsors (Standard Chartered, Samsung etc.), shirt manufactures (Adidas, Warrior etc.).
(6) Advertising. Example: Companies who buy time on video screens during games or hoardings at the stadium.
(7) Other operating income. Example: Payments made to a club for playing friendly matches in the Far East.
(8) Income from transfers: Example: All income from the sale of a player regardless of payment being due to previous clubs, the player himself etc. as they are allowable expenses which will later be deducted.
(9) Excess proceeds on the sale of tangible fixed assets. Example: The money Arsenal from converting part of Highbury in to apartments and selling them.
(10) Other income: Example: Interest on investments.
Relevant Expenses
(1) The costs of running the business (confusingly referred to as “the cost of sales” by accountants etc.). Example: Wages, ground maintenance, lighting, telephones, IT equipment, travel costs, policing costs etc..
(2) Employee related benefits and associated costs. Example: Costs of providing insurance, dental care, medical, employer NI contribution, housing, loyalty bonuses etc..
(3) Other operating expenses. Example: Payments for advertising, legal fees, agent fees, accounting fees, payments to players in relation to transfers, payments to player’s previous clubs, etc..
(4) Amortisation or transfer costs. Example: The total amount of money paid to another club to transfer a player or, if a club decides to do so, the amortised cost for that year (where a club is spreading the cost of the transfer out over the length of his contract for accounting purposes).
(5) Finance costs. Example: Bank charges, interest on loans etc..
(6) Dividends. Example: The owners may take a dividend from the profits a club makes as income.
Excluded Expenses
(1) Depreciation of tangible fixed assets. Example: The loss, if any, in value of the stadium, cars, IT equipment etc..
(2) Costs associated with the intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations). Example: goodwill, franchises, trademarks, copyrights etc..
(3) Expenditure on youth development activities. Example: All youth development expenses (housing, schooling, travel, medical etc.) are excluded from the calculations.
(4) Community development activities. Example: Outreach programmes, donations to the local community and charities, provision of equipment etc..
(5) Tax expenses. Example: Monies paid to the Inland Revenue, VAT etc..
(6) Finance costs related to construction of tangible fixed assets. Example: The interest on the £300M loan to build a new stadium.
(7) Interest payments on old loans (pre June 1, 2011). Example: Any interest due on a loan taken out for whatever purpose before June 1, 2011 is excluded from the calculations.
(8) Certain expenses from non-football operations. Example: This does not really apply to British clubs, but in other European countries clubs are often “sporting clubs” and have basketball, football, hockey team etc. all under one business.
The Calculation
FFPR calculates from a club’s “relevant” income and the “relevant” expenses whether the club is running at a surplus (profit) or deficit (loss) within a Monitoring Period (e.g. 2013/14). From this the FFPR decides if a club has met the “break even” requirement or not. This is not met if the “relevant” expenses exceed the “relevant” income by more than 5M euros (an acceptable deviation).
If the club exceeds this acceptable deviation, the owners of a club may contribute toward correcting it to a maximum of 45M euro over a rolling three year period (30M euro from 2015/16 on). Example: If Club X made a loss of 50M euro in 2013/14 due to the purchase of players, the calculation will ignore the first 5M euro and assume an owner contribution of 45M euro and there would not be an issue. However, for the two years following, there would be no allowable owner contribution as the full allocation had been used. If Club Y made a loss of 30M euro in 2013/14 due to the purchase of players, the calculation will ignore the first 5M euro and assume an owner contribution of 25M euro and there would not be an issue. But in this case, for the two years following, there would still be 20M euro allowable as owner contribution to cover further losses.
The Punishment
The Threat: If a club has been determined to have violated the “break even” requirement for a season it may be excluded from the next season’s UEFA competitions.
Likely Situation: If a club can show it has been moving in the right direction and doing what it can to overcome financial issues, perhaps brought on by a recession (e.g. in Spain) then I would expect a strongly worded letter as a warning. Perhaps by then end of the 2016/2017 season, If a club has been determined to have violated the “break even” requirement for several seasons then it may be excluded from the next season’s UEFA competitions.
UEFA are willing to make some exceptions to the rule and have already said they will consider:
(1) The quantum and trend of the break even result. Example: Chelsea has spent a lot this summer rebuilding an aging squad, so even with considerable additional income from winning the Champions League it could violate the “break even” requirement. However, spending less next season will show the club moving in the right direction. Expect a strongly worded letter in a couple of years time.
(2) Debt situation. Example: A possible “get out” for Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United should they have a bad season and need to violate the “break even” requirement. Consideration will be given to the existing debt and the ability of the clubs to service that debt. The trend of the debt reducing and an excuse of “one bad season” and “need to rebuild the team” would likely result in a slapped wrist.
(3) Fluctuating exchange rates. Example: All non eurozone countries need to report the FFPR figures in euros which could fluctuate due to the exchange rate, whereas a number of the UEFA figures are fixed amounts (e.g. the 5M euro acceptable deviation).
(4) Projected figures. Example: UEFA will allow clubs to show that they are moving in the right direction if they provide projected figures showing that the “break even” requirement will be met in the following season.
(5) Force majeure. Example: Any extraordinary events or situation arising that is beyond the club’s control will be taken in to account.
(6) Until then end of 2014/15 only - Ongoing reductions in wage costs. UEFA will be flexible over the “break even” requirement if a club can show that their wage bill has been reducing and with the exclusion of wages of players signed before June 1, 2010 they would have met the “break even” requirement. Example: An escape route for the likes of Chelsea prior to prior season with Drogba, Anelka, Bosingwa, Kalou, Cech, Terry, Lampard etc. wages excluded from the calculations. A possible future escape route for the likes of Barcelona.
The Issues
There are a number of matters that UEFA still need to figure out and a number of concerns that certain clubs and certain national associations have. Off the top of my head:
(1) Loopholes: Whilst UEFA has done what it can to block any potential “loopholes” it is well aware that exclusion of wages for players signed before June 2010 is one it has introduced itself, and one that will be popular with the higher paying clubs as a short term escape route through to the summer of 2015. The matters of excessive sponsorship will be addressed via a cap to thwart the concerns over the likes of Manchester City abusing the rules. The cap has yet to be finalised but will require ratification.
(2) Soft Sponsorship: UEFA are concerned at the aggressive approach to obtaining sponsorship some clubs are taking. Questions are being asked about the ethics in clubs having airline travel partners, photocopier partners etc.. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(3) National Sponsorship Variations: As we have seen tobacco sponsorship leave Formula 1 UEFA would like to see alcohol sponsorship out of football. We already have a situation where sponsorship by alcohol related businesses are forbidden in certain countries. Wealthy breweries are now focussing their sponsorship in other countries thereby creating a perceived imbalance in what income clubs are able to obtain in sponsorship. The French and Russian clubs have raised this as a concern.
(4) National Financial Distribution Variations: Concerns exist in countries where different models are used for distributing prize money, contributing to the grassroots game and distributing income from television and other media broadcasting. This led to an original request (rejected) from a number of clubs to restrict the FFPR to only the wealthiest of clubs, those with a turnover in excess of xM euros.
(5) National Taxation Variations: There is a considerable difference across UEFA nations in taxation, and this is seen to be reflected in the wages paid to players. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(6) Third Party Ownership: Countries that allow third party ownership of players are seen to have a distinct advantage in being able to keep the costs of transfer fees low as they are only paying for a proportion of a player. The English clubs have raised this as a concern.
The Great Fear
Without going in to too much detail: (a) A number of clubs take the opportunity a once or twice a year to discuss various issues including changes in rules, television rights, the power of UEFA, exploitation issues for new technology streams, etc.. These discussions, the last of which were in late August, also always turn to the possibility and structure of a breakaway pan European league. Several are ex-G14 clubs, several are not, and some clubs decline involvement in such discussions. (b) The plan is that at some point a number of clubs would break away from their national leagues and UEFA. They accept that they would be banned from all existing club competition and the players would initially be banned from all FIFA competitions as well, but know that FIFA would be looking to negotiate in any case. It would be the end of UEFA in all probability and UEFA are very aware of this. It would also result in a restructuring of many of the national leagues. (c) The clubs would renegotiate their television rights, rights of distribution via other streams etc.. (d) It remains the greatest fear of UEFA and all major national authorities that one day this will happen.
}

05 Apr 2013 16:19:15
who was that masked man on the pitch last night, surely couldn't have been torres, looked like a completely different player. pace, drive, confidence let's hope he can continue that on for the rest of the season and bow out the bridge on a high.

05 Apr 2013 13:06:03
ex chelsea player nemanja matic who plays for benfica has a 42 million euro release clause in his contract. right now he is mainstay of benfica midfield. he is a versatile player good at both feet.

kings xi chelsea

All it shows and proves to me is how mad we as a club are at bringing through the youngsters!

I'd still rather have Luiz.
People need to remember that's the only reason we agreed to Matic leaving.

Luiz is brilliant. but don't you feel there is something wrong in system. we sign emerging talents all across globe. they come to chelsea, have a unexplainable halt in progress. look at kakuta, stoch. they were supposed to be future superstars. but the progress of both just took a halt. ho far chelsea will be a buying club? see we need to spend heavy to be a candidate to win 4 trophies. why ca not we promote talent like barcelona does?

People should rather remember that we have valued Matic at 1.5 million euro in the dealand included him as part of it. Not that it was essential or forced our hand in anyway. But the fact is he would not had a chance in our set-up. He would have been released or sold for that much anyway. There is no way players can break into our first team set up in the meantime with the system we carry.

Carefree

Stupid post. Many talents don't progress to the expected level for many different reasons. Why exactly has Jeremy Boga, Lewis Baker and RLC excelled at Cobram? They weren't expected to be superstars like Kakuta (due to one tournament) but they are progressing well because they have a terrific attitude and their feet are kept firmly on the ground, by our terrific youth team coaches. Absolutely rubbish post by an obviously uninformed anonymous troll.

Disagree Melbourne, our youngsters suffer at our club. We all want challobah to take over from Mikel, it won't happen well sign the next Essien. BLUEBOY1

'We all want Chalobah to take over from Mikel'? I don't. He's untested in the PL and hasn't got a lot of experience. that's not to say he's not good. But I personally believe that he's only good for his age, not necessarily the required quality to be a first team starter. He's only 18 and has a lot of time to improve.
Previously our youth hasn't been able to break throug due to a few reasons. When Abramovich took over our youth system wasn't great however after substantial investment we're only now starting to reap the benefits. With Mr. A coming in and heavy expenditure in the first team in the intitial years, we created a team that at its peak we're amazing. And therefore the opportunities for youth was limited. Now that there has been a gradual decline in performances due to players getting older, and there being a major overhaul to overturn our ageing squad, I can see a greater opportunity for youth intergration. Personally I don't believe we should intergrate youth team players simply because they're young. They need to deserve their place in the team based on merit, not simply because they are good for their age. Chalobah could be the best 18 year old in the world, but if Mikel or someone else is better than him he doesn't deserve to play.

05 Apr 2013 12:49:56
Anything new on the Cavani situation Ed? Cheers {Ed002's Note - No.}

I believe Napoli want around 70M Euros, having previously turned down offers at 55m.