Chelsea is said to be stockpiling players on low wages and putting them on very long contracts, to capitalize on the ones that become world stars, while easily selling off the ones that don't, for profit. According to them, these players that don't work out will be easy to sell because of their low wages.
This is also an ownership that claims to be trying to assemble a 100-point team, which means that the owners plan to achieve this by buying as many players as possible on low wages, then as time passes, they'd shift the ones that aren't 'of the quality required for a 100-pt team'. This plan is flawed on so many levels, not to mention the fact that the board's claim is not even true in the first place.
First of all, one just has to listen to the words coming from their mouths, to know that they're only working hard to give one impression, while the reality is the complete opposite. Many of the things they have done up until this point indicate that they have no idea what they're doing, especially regarding player contracts and squad building.
And yes, squad building is also on them because they are the ones who appointed the people responsible for player recruitment, that is if those people are indeed responsible for player recruitment.
Despite the reality, Todd Boehly and Beghdad Eghbali continue to speak to the press and say things to pretend that they're on top of the situation, despite already admitting that they made mistakes.
Before I address the main points, it's important to first debunk this claim - and that is what it is: a claim - that Chelsea's average wage is £60-70k (below the £72k average of the Premier League (PL))
This is not true. What's more, is that it makes sense that it's not true. The board may be trying to pull a fast one on listeners/readers. Chelsea's average wage is not below £72,000, regardless of how you look at it.
In fact, according to Capology, the Blues' average wage is just over £89,500, and that includes players who have no chance to start at league level, as well as players who have gone on loan, including Andrey Santos, Diego Moreira, Cesare Casadei, Armando Broja, Deivid Washington, Lesley Ugochukwu, and David Datro Fofana, all on less than 50,000 wages, which will bring down the average significantly.
Even if you say the only players at Chelsea on higher wages than the PL average are the key players you can expect to start every game, you'd run into another problem when you consider the players on a relatively high wage.
'Shrewd' board handing out player contracts
Marc Guiu is an 18-year-old striker who spent most of the 2023/24 season playing in the third tier of Spanish football. He only had five (5) senior appearances to his name when Chelsea signed him, yet he is on £100k/week.
Mykhailo Mudryk who had 53 senior club appearances across the Ukrainian League and the UEFA Champions League, with 12 senior goals to his name, was signed on £100k/week too. This 'shrewd' board that is talking about transfer policies oversaw these negotiations.
Carney Chukwuemeka, who had 14 league appearances for Aston Villa, combining for 338 minutes, and 16 senior club appearances overall, arrived at Chelsea at the beginning of the 2022/23 season and was placed on £100k/week too.
This is not even mentioning the fee spent on these players. £100k/week in the Premier League is high. To put this in context, the highest earners on many non-big six sides earn between £100k and £150k. At Aston Villa, the highest earner is on £150k. Key players like John McGinn, Lucas Digne, Leon Bailey, and Emiliano Martinez are on £120k. Diego Carlos is on £100k.
That is a club that will play UEFA Champions League football this season. Crystal Palace's highest earner currently is on £105k, and he arrived this window. Key players at Newcastle, Alexander Isak and Sandro Tonali, are on £120k.
Part of the allure of the Premier League is the money, so even £72k is a much higher wage than the average wage in other big five leagues. This brings us to the next point.
Easily sell the ones that don't work out
Who would you sell these players to? It takes two to tango. To sell a player, there has to be a buyer. Transfer fees are not the most important parts of transfers, wages are. Players could go for zero transfer fees, and still be their club's top earner.
For instance, if a Mudryk doesn't work out, who would he be sold to? Chelsea is the only club that would pay the wages Mudryk is being paid to be a squad player. Only about four other clubs in the league can afford to pay Mudryk £100k, and those clubs have competent recruitment teams, so they won't be paying it. What then? Exile him to the U21s to force him out too?
There are too many examples of players who are on big wages, and their clubs have not been able to move them on till their contracts ran out.
Chelsea's owners don't seem to realize that "we'd sell them for profit" is only possible when the player you place on the market is better than when you bought him, or has stayed with you long enough. People talk about amortization a lot, but you could very well still take losses on players if they haven't stayed at the club long enough. In the Blues case, that is likely to happen more often than not.
Wages are a better indication of squad quality
Finally, the plan to keep the average salary of the squad at around £65k is in contrast with the plan to build a 100-pt team. This means that only one of those statements is true. You either want to build a 100-point team, or you want to keep the wages low.
This is because wages are a better indication of player quality and squad strength. Squad strength is not determined by size, it's determined by size relative to prowess.
Keeping the wages at about £65k on average would guarantee that you in fact have a squad that's as good as a £65k average wage squad. Of all the big six sides, the only one with an average wage close to what Chelsea's board dreams of, is Tottenham Hotspur, and Spurs finished 5th, conceded 61 league goals, lost 12/38 games, and conceded way too many goals from set pieces.
Last season, many waxed lyrical about the style of play Tottenham's manager Ange Postecoglou used, and many found his team enjoyable to watch, however, the one thing coming out of the mouths of the fans, is that they need reinforcements. Reinforcements mean replacing poor players with much better ones, which would cost more in transfer fees...and wages.
The only 100-pt team ever produced in this league is Manchester City, and its average wage is...the highest in the league, at £136k/week. Arsenal, who has finished second in the last two seasons, averaging 89 points, has an average wage of £126k per week, ranking Mikel Arteta's men second.
So Boehly and Eghbali have to make up their minds, do they want a boatload full of players on below Premier League average wages, or do they want a 100-point team? It cannot be both.
If you enjoyed this, continue coming back to the Pride of London to read more interesting things on Chelsea, and follow me on X (formerly Twitter). I also write on Medium on things about Chelsea and other clubs, so you can find me there too.