I think the ownership philosophies are totally different. Their new owner is splashing the cash to try and improve Chelsea and set the foundations for their team for the next 5-8 years. Meanwhile FSG have massively raised Lpools value during their ownership despite the club always having to be self reliant. FSG have never ploughed cash into the transfer kitty and certainly begin now.
It's not really a "loophole". Just a different business model. I am quite sure every other team would know they could do the same if they wanted. Possibly a result of the nature of the financial backers and their funding.
I would call it a loophole. If it was just a different business model the FA wouldn't have changed the rules (closed the loophole ) so others couldn't do it.
A loophole in the financial fair play rules that has been used by Chelsea to sign players on contracts of up to eight-and-a-half years to spread the impact of transfer spending "is to be closed" by UEFA. Officials at the governing body plan to "set a five-year maximum for the length of time over which a player’s transfer fee can be spread," with the new policy brought in before the summer transfer window. The move reportedly comes after "a number of clubs raised concerns" with UEFA over Chelsea’s policy. Winger Mykhailo Mudryk this month signed "the longest contract in the 30-year history of the Premier League" when he joined Chelsea on an eight-and-a-half-year deal. Under amortization, the £80M ($99M) fee would be recorded as £9.41M ($11.7M) per year for UEFA's FFP calculations. If Mudryk had signed a four-year deal, the £80M fee would be calculated as £20M ($24.8M) per year. UEFA will not prevent Chelsea from "spreading the cost of the players they have signed already" UEFA to set limit on length of player contracts (sportsbusinessjournal.com)
That's what I thought. And I still don't see it as a "loophole". To me a loophole is a way to gain an unfair advantage without risk. Long contracts have always been a possibility for every club, but I guess no one previously wanted to take the inherent risks.
to me a loophole is applying rules in a way it was not intended when the rules were made. If the FA had predicted Chelsea's behavior they probably would have made the 5 year rule originally. The fact that they changed the rule in the way they did shows you that Chelsea applied them in a way they did not intend. Think tax loophole were the original author didn't see a way that someone could circumvent an intended rule. Chelsea would not have been able to sign those players if things were done as intended, they there gained an unfair advantage.
I see a fundamental difference between Nottingham Forest, and Chelsea right now. probably because if you are wrong, you have huge exposure. Boehly is betting that 1) that the people he buys will turn out, and 2) that the current inflation of player values will continue. if either of those two assumptions turn out to be wrong, he(and Chelsea) are screwed. I think I’d rather be tied to a more conservative model.
We should definitely have taken advantage of those loopholes. We’d be in a much better position right now had we signed Milner, Henderson, Fabinho, Keita, AOC and Emre Can to 10 year deals.
Timing is everything. We have two of the greatest seasons of all time only to be beaten by City by one point both times. The year that we completely slip up is the year that the title was there for the taking.
We needed to win 26 out of our first 27 games in the league to finally beat City. How lucky are Arsenal? They are going to win the league by being just okay.