FanPost

Why selling Fernando Torres might not be such a good idea

For entirely NON-footballing reasons... Obviously.

Fernando_torres_2370590b_medium

via i.telegraph.co.uk

A certain Fernando Torres is a bit of pain. Not only because he manages to play nearly every competitive game for us, but because his performances haven't matched the amount of money we paid for him and pay him every week. I will however, come up with an argument that says actually he could be a bit of a godsend in a new financial era.

There has been a lot of talk about FFP in the last few years, should Chelsea be worried? No probably not. It will put more pressure on this new young generation to perform, because if they fail, our revenues probably won't increase enough to be in the highest band of football clubs (The prestige levels of a Barca, Madrid, Utd., Bayern) but I'm fairly comfortable that we will be OK.

The reasons behind this are the following: When looking at a fantastic interview by Martin Samuel on FFP, it seems incredibly clear that the new rules were brought in because owners like Berlusconi couldn't compete with Abramovich and they said "That's not fair Michel, how will we win the Champions League again if we can't buy the best players in the world?".

Platini agreed with that point and said, we have to put a stop to teams having a lot of money but no background as a big team. The most important thing to note is that as a Chelsea fan, UEFA are basically 10 years too late to stop us, because at this point (and this is emphasized by our brand new £30M a year kit deal with Adidas) we are clearly already a massive club. When you get sponsorship's levels similar to Arsenal and bigger than City, Chelsea will feel pretty comfortable only 2 teams will ever be able to get ahead of them in the Premier League in terms of revenues if stadium sizes are equal and although Utd. are ahead, the other team (Liverpool - purely as a historically valued brand) would appear to have no chance of doing that any time soon.

So when Platini gave Roman a quick phone call and said, "Our plan right now, is to make sure that effectively, there will never be a Man City Mk II, is that alright with you?" Roman clearly wanted to agree with this deal, it effectively cements Chelsea as one of the top 3 sides in England and with TV revenues in England making it so popular in Europe, it should cement them as one of Europe's great teams (Fingers crossed)

Now, given the clear cut nature of FFP being "Make MORE money than you spend" I don't see this as a concern to Chelsea, there are so many ways to boost the revenue of a top football club, teams just haven't had the necessity (and it was always considered owners were in the game for their love of it, not for money).

FFP isn't the problem, I think Chelsea's biggest problem in the next 3 years is the recent agreement to put a limit on the increase allowed of wages. recently the Premier League voted to put a limit on wage increases every year, which has been set at £4M.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/feb/premier-league-new-financial-rules-explained.html

£4M is practically nothing, in footballing terms anyway. It is roughly £75,000 a week, which means you could go out and sign a good player, but we couldn't sign Hazard without getting rid of someone on a salary of something like £70,000.

This isn't the biggest concern, if Juan Mata comes to the board and says "I'm on £50,000 a week, I'm worth double that" you are effectively destroying any chance the club has of signing a new player by using the wages on a current player.

I may be mistaken, but I see this as Chelsea's biggest hurdle towards buying a player like Cavani in the future, I don't see how we can continue to increase the squad whilst also lower the wages. What's not mentioned is how the loan system works, I mean imagine Courtois is on £4M a year, but Atletico are paying that salary, does him coming back to the club next season count as an increase of £4M a year, or was that technically always there?

This is why we should keep Fernando, He may waste £Xm a year, but actually it would seem like a good idea to have that amount of money available so that our yearly wage increase isn't massive. It would seem like what I am saying is go out and buy a player on massive wages now, because in effect they can get in before the wage structure is almost permanently set in stone. This would prove a massive bonus to Man City in its current structure and if anything I suspect Man Utd. would lose out.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any sort of approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions held by the editors of this site.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join We Ain't Got No History

You must be a member of We Ain't Got No History to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at We Ain't Got No History. You should read them.

Join We Ain't Got No History

You must be a member of We Ain't Got No History to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at We Ain't Got No History. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9353_tracker