Snak

det har vi også, dog kun for en sæson.

EDIT den er så åbenbart ikke 100% lukket i nu.

Chelsea have yet to agree a deal for a front-of-shirt sponsorship despite recent rumours about a near agreement with a technology company, according to reports.

The Blues recently agreed a shirt sleeve sponsorship deal with one of its established partners, FPT, a Vietnam-based technology solutions provider, on a short-term basis.

There remain questions about Chelsea´s search for front-of-shirt sponsors, which would be worth more than the one with FPT.

There have been rumours that Chelsea were close to signing a deal with Oracle, an American multinational technology company, on a similarly short-term basis until the end of the current season.

However, according to BBC Sport´s Nizaar Kinsella, Chelsea remain in negotiations with several possible partners for a front-of-shirt sponsorship deal.

"There have been rumours about Oracle becoming Chelsea´s main sponsor," the journalist acknowledged.

"However, official sources still say it is an open, ongoing process involving multiple potential partners.

"Oracle is certainly the type of company Chelsea would like to work with -- a strong, blue-chip brand -- but only on a long-term basis and at around £55m per season.

"For now, all I can say is that the process remains ongoing, and it is still unclear when the club will announce a deal."

In an earlier report from The Athletic, Chelsea´s president of commercial, Todd Kline, and president and chief operating officer, Jason Gannon, are said to be the two people leading the negotiations over sponsorships.

The last front-of-shirt sponsorship deal Chelsea had was with Dubai-based property company Damac, and it was for a mere seven-game agreement.

Prior to that, Chelsea had a £40m-plus deal with Infinite Athlete for the 2023/24 season.

One thing for sure is that the longer Chelsea are without a main sponsor, the more they are at a disadvantage revenue-wise compared to competitors.

Vince71
I dag 14:33
Interessant KO.
Nogen ide om hvordan det påvirker os godt/skidt? Måske jeg læser det forkert men det lyder som en løsere tilgang end de nuværende regler?

Det er det stadig kun 85% i PL det betyder i bund grund at det burde hjælpe de hold mest som ikke spiller med i UEFA, det er dog stadig en sandhed med modifikationer da det altid vil hjælpe dem med størst omsætning mest, det skal dog siges at en klub som "United" hvis det var denne sæson ville få ret meget ud af det da de har en stor omsætning men ikke skal efter leve UEFA regler.

Men som sagt træder det først i kraft næste sæson og der må man regne med de spiller i UEFA igen.

Min først konklusion er det hjælper mest de klubber som har en ejer/gruppe som ikke er med i UEFA der vil kaste penge ind i klubben og på den måde kan give dem et boost (husk de 30% er ikke permanentet min forventning er det er som mange andre ting over 3 år). til at opnå dette, så jeg ser det som en hjælpende hånd til dem der står "uden for det fine selskab og har penge og det er med til at øge konkurrencen yderlig i PL.

Alle andre klubber må stå skoleret over for UEFA og ser ikke det ændre noget som helst for Chelsea pt.

EDIT:

Ellers tror jeg ikke der er ret mange der kan give et svar på “vindere og tabere” på sådan noget. De 30% der nævnes er vel med henblik på at nyrige klubber kan tyvstarte lidt som de ikke kunne tidligere uden meget hurtigt at få PSR problemer, men ellers er det vel som Tintin siger de klubber med stor omsætning det fortsat gavner mest at have sådan nogle regler.

Kunne taberne ikke være de klubber der er etableret i bunden/midten med en ok til fin omsætning, men ikke decideret høj omsætning, der nu måske vil se klubber med nye rige ejere overhale dem? En klub som Everton f. eks hvis deres nye ejer ikke er villig til at udnytte de 30% kan jo potentielt se mindre klubber med lavere omsætning gå forbi dem tænker jeg?

Lidt det samme Deebo også er inde på, beklager så ikke dit opslag før jeg skrev min del.

Vi har lavere omsætning end de røde. Dermed hjælper det her givet de røde mere end det hjælper os. Dertil fjerner det jo også eventuelle PSR problemer fra Man Utd, der nu bare fremover skal holde sig til max 85% af omsætningen år efter år.

Altså United skal jo også leve op til UEFA hvis de kommer med igen, dog er de ikke underlagt de har begrænsninger som vi er, som nok er en meget større fordel for dem end selve PL tiltaget.

Men altså det er jo vores egen skyld, og man kunne vel med rette spørg havde vi ikke lavet de "jule numre" var man så med i CL nu, det er jeg ikke helt sikker på.

Så hvem der fik/får mest ud af det må stå til tro i nu det vil tiden vise, det er bare sikkert at CL er sindssyg vigtig for vores økonomi pt. (frem af).

Ikke mindst når man tænker på de begrænsninger vi har som klub vdr stadion, og indtægter fra sponsor.

Her er en langt mere detaljeret forklaring, men jeg tog fejl med de tre år det var vurderes faktisk år til år, og så skal man rette ind til sæsonen efter.

Men det giver helt sikkert nogle klubber mulighed for at investere noget her nu hvis det ikke går helt som planlagt, eller man har brug for et boost.

Premier League clubs will no longer be able to sell assets like hotels and women´s teams to themselves to circumvent financial rules after they agreed to new regulations from next season.
It comes after clubs narrowly voted through a new system of Financial Fair Play (FFP) based on squad costs on Friday.
The clubs met in London to vote on three possible methods of replacing Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR).

Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) got 14 votes in favour and six against, which is the minimum number that is required to exact a rule change.
Overall squad costs from the 2026-27 campaign will have to be limited to 85% of a club´s revenue, although teams competing in Europe will have to adhere to Uefa´s maximum of 70%.
Squad costs comprise player and manager wages, transfer fees and agents´ fees.

Most notably it will end the loophole of selling capital assets, like hotels and women´s teams.
The assessment will only be based on a club´s total earnings from football operations.
Rules around sustainability, which set out a club´s financial spending plans over the medium and long term, were passed unanimously.
But anchoring, which would have placed a top limit on spending based on the money earned by the bottom club, failed to get the necessary support. Twelve voted against it, with seven in favour and one abstaining.
"The new SCR rules are intended to promote opportunity for all clubs to aspire to greater success and bring the league´s financial system close to Uefa´s existing SCR rules," a Premier League statement read.

"The other key features of the league´s new system include transparent in-season monitoring and sanctions, protection against sporting underperformance, an ability to spend ahead of revenues, strengthened ability to invest off the pitch, and a reduction in complexity by focusing on football costs."

What is Squad Cost Ratio and how will it affect clubs?
PSR was about a club´s balance sheet of all revenues over a three-year period, while SCR is just about team costs on a seasonal basis.
The new rules will operate a dual system, with clubs in European competition having to adhere to Uefa´s SCR limit of 70% - so a club could be sanctioned by Uefa but be compliant in the Premier League.
The higher limit is intended to protect the Premier League´s competitive balance, given the increased income that will be received by those clubs competing in Europe.
Chelsea and Aston Villa were both given heavy fines by Uefa for breaches in the 2024-25 campaign, and that is when the limit in Europe was 80%.
The Premier League has added some wriggle room, too, with a multi-year rolling allowance of 30% that permits clubs to spend beyond the limit. It allows clubs to invest ahead of revenue and variance or sporting underperformance.
An assessment is made each March, and the allowance is crucial to determine possible sporting sanctions applied in the same season.
The 85% marker is known as the Green Threshold. Spend above that and you get a financial penalty, although this will be far less punitive than Uefa.
The Red Threshold is 85% plus the allowance. Go beyond that, and it is a fixed six-point deduction which increases by one point for every £6.5m spent over the Red Threshold.

Think of it this way - every club will start next season on 85% + 30% allowance, so effectively 115%.
Any clubs that spend above 85% will face a fine, but they would need to be in excess of 115% to lose points.
But those percentages will change for 2027-28.
If a club spends 105% on their squad next season, it means they have used 20% of their allowance, and for 2027-28 their maximum spend before potential sporting sanction is 95%.
If a club spend less that 85%, they can increase the allowance again to the maximum of 30%.

Which clubs will be affected?
Several clubs, in healthy financial positions, were happy with PSR and wanted to keep the status quo.
SCR will not worry the biggest clubs with the best commercial operations.
But linking the wage bill to income is not attractive to clubs with less financial resources.
That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against.
Bournemouth´s ground holds just over 11,000 but they need to pay Premier League wages so could be one of the losers, and it is a similar situation for Fulham.
Savvy transfer business will be crucial for these clubs, as Bournemouth would be in no trouble this season because of their transfer business last summer.
But 85%, with the additional 30% buffer, gives every club some headroom, and time to adapt.

Aston Villa and Newcastle were among the clubs annoyed with the restrictions PSR imposed on their ability to spend on the squad. But they cannot get too excited about the move to SCR, as they have to operate to 70% as a club in Uefa competition.

Why was anchoring voted down?
With only seven votes in favour it was not close to being a viable option - but the top clubs were split over it.
Manchester City and Manchester United feared they could eventually breach the anchoring limit as their revenues grow, but Arsenal and Liverpool voted in favour of it.
Top-to-bottom anchoring (TBA) limits the total spending to five times the TV payments received from the Premier League by its bottom club.
This season it is expected that the team that finishes 20th will earn about £120m, which would create an upper anchoring limit of £600m.
But once the SCR rules are applied no club´s spending limit would reach £600m.
It was intended to stop the spending of the top clubs increasingly outstripping everyone else as their revenues grow.
But some feared the cap could eventually impact their ability to compete for players with the likes of Real Madrid.
The Professional Footballers´ Association (PFA), meanwhile, had previously warned that clubs would spend less on player salaries, effectively creating a wage cap which could face legal action.
There were also fears that a reduction in future broadcasting deals would effectively result in a lower cap.

Why were sustainability rules passed so easily?
This was a simple one for the Premier League clubs, because they are already going to have to produce financial projections over the short, medium and long-term.
That will be a requirement of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR), which will begin its work later this season.
Clubs will have to give projections about their financial planning and their ability to fund the running of the club.
The focus is on monitoring and the imposition of measures that return a club to compliance for any breach.
So, that would be something like a spending restriction or debt rebalancing.

However, according to BBC Sport´s Nizaar Kinsella, Chelsea remain in negotiations with several possible partners for a front-of-shirt sponsorship deal.

Det er også det indtryk jeg har fået fra de medier jeg har støt på for nyligt.

Der var også et medie som skrev at det ikke var utænkeligt at Chelsea ikke fik den 55m aftale de søgte og i stedet gik med en kort løsning for 40-45m årligt, så de kunne genforhandle igen om 1-2 år.

Forventningen virker dog til at være at det bare er et spørgsmål om hvornår aftalen kommer på plads og ikke om den gør.

Vi er en kæmpe joke på det sponsor marked, tænk at andre klubber kan lande aftaler større end det vi ikke kan få over stregen … amateurs

Sanchez;
James, Tosin, Chalobah, Cucurella;
Santos, Fernandez;
Neto, Joao Pedro, Gittens;
Delap

Bench: Jorgensen, Gusto, Acheampong, Badiashile, Hato, Caicedo, Estevao, Garnacho, Guiu.

Den startopstillingen skriger lidt af at Caicedo, Estevao og Garnacho starter mod barcelona hvis Maresca gør som han plejer med sin kamp til kamp rotation.

Altid spændende hvilket Chelsea hold vi får efter landsholdspausen.

Badiashile tager en kæmpe chance her ved at melde sig klar - der er kun 6-7 uger til transfervinduets start

Men vel også et udtryk for at de 3 har været på lange rejser og vi skal kunne slå burnley med alternativerne, ift caicedo, garnacho og estevao

@Egon

Det er helt sikkert en kombination af rejse og rotation ift tirsdag. Læste at Caicedo først kom hjem torsdag.

Fofana skulle heldigvis ikke være en skade, men bliver bare sparet og starter nok på tirsdag.