Chelsea are playing a high-risk game that could come back to bite them as they thread a fine line of not falling foul of financial fair play regulations.
That is the briefest summary of the implications an unprecedented transfer spend will have on a club that may be emphasising the importance of a long-term project but is now in desperate need of making an unlikely charge towards the Champions League places.
Noni Madueke, the England U-21 forward, is set to become the sixth signing of the January window so far to take the club’s outlay in the past two windows to about £420m. And they are expected to continue splurging, with a holding midfielder and supplementary right back still on the wishlist.
Some are questioning how Chelsea can spend so much and still not fall foul of both UEFA and the Premier League ’s separate financial fair play regulations.
UEFA's new regulation will see clubs permitted to lose €60m (£52.5m) across three seasons with an added control measure that means 90 per cent of revenue this year can be spent on transfers and wages, with the limit reduced to 80 per cent for 2024 and 70 per cent from 2025.
The Premier League allows a £105m loss across three years.
Chelsea's solution has been to offer the new players lengthy contracts, led by Mykhaylo Mudryk agreeing an eight-and-a-half-year deal. They are spreading the repayment of fees, a process known as amortisation, to stay below the threshold of UEFA’s spending rules and the Premier League’s more relaxed version.
It means Chelsea, who have agreed to pay Shakhtar Donetsk an initial €70m (£61m) for the 22-year-old, will only need to pay about £7.2m to the Ukrainian club a season.
Similar will happen with defender Benoit Badiashile and Monaco (a £32m fee and seven-and-a-half year contract), Marc Cucurella and Brighton (£55m, six years) and Wesley Fofana and Leicester (£70m, seven years).
But spreading repayments so thinly, as leading sports lawyer David Diaz, from the Baker McKenzie firm puts it, is a “big bet.” It could produce handsome reward if the new recruits are contributing to a club competing at the very top but end up proving rather costly should potential be unfulfilled.
“All of these new players arriving to Stamford Bridge makes it look like they want results in the short-term and need desperately to be in the top four and to qualify for the Champions League,” Diaz says.
“That’s the aim. And financially speaking, along with selling players by the end of the season, they really need that. What we’re seeing is a strong push for new players to have results in the short-term.
“The focus is on this season because if they don’t reach the Champions League there will be an issue. Not just about selling players but a real hit financially.”
Beyond FFP there is another reason that the long contracts make sense: rivals will find it harder to buy Chelsea’s most valued assets.
The Blues have been the most efficient at moving players on - selling academy graduates Tammy Abraham, Marc Guehi and Fikayo Tomori has produced £77m in profit - but longer contracts for unwanted players, of which there will be some considering the number of arrivals, will be a complicating factor.
“I won’t say prevent because it is not impossible but it makes it more difficult for clubs to poach and take those players,” Diaz adds. “It will be great if the player delivers but if that’s not the case they will have issues because there are commitments for five more years on players not performing at the level expected initially.”
For the players there is stability and with that, in theory, more freedom to develop. “You can understand why they would accept these terms,” Diaz adds.
And yet despite the pros, it is difficult to envisage too many clubs adopting Chelsea’s recruitment approach now. It is an ongoing experiment that recruitment departments and accountants will be monitoring closely - but not everyone has pockets as deep as chairman Todd Boehly and the Clearlake Capital hedge fund bankrolling Chelsea.
“This is a ground-breaking approach but I’m not sure other clubs will follow in the short-term,” Diaz adds. “I don’t see others doing the same unless there are exceptions.
“You need to consider the background of the new owner but also that the club must comply with FFP. It makes sense when you consider all the elements Chelsea face but it’s not a magic recipe for other clubs.”
