Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Chelsea sign player on 8 and a half year contract !

8 and a half years !!! 
«1

Comments

  • Just ridiculous
  • edited January 15
    Baseball owner giving out baseball length contracts. We’ll see if it becomes the norm…
  • It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

    No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.
  • Wasn’t Abramovich’s money seized and promised to Ukrainians … is this part of it in an underhand way or am I 2+2=80,000,000
  • Havent they just signed Andrey Santos from Vasco on a seven year deal as well?
  • Way to get around ffp… risky though, he looks good, but all he has done in score 12 goals in the Ukrainian league
  • edited January 15
    I know "stats" arent everything as they're pretty meh, but until he was linked with Arsenal I'd never heard of him?

    What on earth has he done to remotely justify a potential (depending on bonuses) £100m price tag?

    Football has lost the plot

    At least when our players do something, you know the reason is English Tax
  • Chelsea averaging 10 million a day spend on transfers since the window opened including spunking 100m on a 22 year old and yet we can't seem to shift a whole team and stadium for half of that. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • If he's a dud imagine having the security to just sit on the bench at 200k a week for 8 years. 
    This would be hilarious, next Winston Bogarde.
  • After 178 games out on loan he'll be moved on in 2028...
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

    No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.
    Good thing is if Chelsea are having to do this, hopefully they are very close to having FFP issues  for what they are worth.
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

    No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.
    What will be interesting is if a few years down the line all these massive signings haven't worked out then Chelsea will have to go back to the transfer market, but with a huge dent already in their FFP allowance for that year from 5 or 6 players they signed three years ago . They can sign new players and do the same thing again, rolling their debt on for years but I wouldn't be surprised if this loophole is closed soon and then Chelsea might find they've got a team in need of a rebuild and no space to work in. They'll also definitely be getting less back on unsuccessful players now that Granovskaia has gone; she was the master of somehow convincing clubs to overpay for players who didn't work out and I doubt there's anyone filling her role to her level
  • Read today that they're open to offers for Raheem Sterling who they signed in the summer.
  • iaitch said:
    Read today that they're open to offers for Raheem Sterling who they signed in the summer.
    I think he's a bit out of our price range.
  • I agree about the price but we already have CBT and Campbell for that position.
  • That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.
  • edited January 16
    YTS1978 said:
    That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.
    Two sides to every coin, Chelsea had massive debt, which was all owed to RA and has been, in effect, whiped out.



    And their player farm, does indeed make a fortune.


  • Sponsored links:


  • seem to be massively overpaying regardless… could probably have got kvaratskhelia for that and he looks the real deal
  • I'm obviously wrong, but I thought 5 years was the maximum allowed on a single contract 
  • I'm obviously wrong, but I thought 5 years was the maximum allowed on a single contract 
    Iñaki Williams has a 9 year contract
    Raul had a life time contract at Real.
  • YTS1978 said:
    That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.
    You're right yes, they do make a fortune from selling their younger kids.

    I'd imagine this summer they will also be looking to move on players like Pulisic, Ziyech, Jorginho, Azpilicueta, Aubameyang, Lukaku plus one of Kepa/Mendy. I don't see Gallagher having much of a future there either. That lot combined will probably get them over 150m in money back.

    But also Abramovich wiped out all of their debt so in terms of FFP they're starting from a position of 0, hence i think they can get away with stupid spending for a while.
  • edited January 16
    Cafc43v3r said:
    YTS1978 said:
    That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.
    Two sides to every coin, Chelsea had massive debt, which was all owed to RA and has been, in effect, whiped out.



    And their player farm, does indeed make a fortune.


    I think you just posted the same graph twice? ( just so you know I'm paying attention).
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    YTS1978 said:
    That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.
    Two sides to every coin, Chelsea had massive debt, which was all owed to RA and has been, in effect, whiped out.



    And their player farm, does indeed make a fortune.


    I think you just posted the same graph twice? ( just so you know I'm paying attention).
    Thanks, changed it now :-) 
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

    No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.
    What will be interesting is if a few years down the line all these massive signings haven't worked out then Chelsea will have to go back to the transfer market, but with a huge dent already in their FFP allowance for that year from 5 or 6 players they signed three years ago . They can sign new players and do the same thing again, rolling their debt on for years but I wouldn't be surprised if this loophole is closed soon and then Chelsea might find they've got a team in need of a rebuild and no space to work in. They'll also definitely be getting less back on unsuccessful players now that Granovskaia has gone; she was the master of somehow convincing clubs to overpay for players who didn't work out and I doubt there's anyone filling her role to her level
    Just asking as I don't know, wouldn't Chelsea just pay up his contract to get him off the books if he's a dud and can't be sold?
    Lets face it money not been an issue there in the last decade or probably for the next.
    Expect this will come up on the "price of Football" pod, Kieran Macguire, worth a listen
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

    No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.
    What will be interesting is if a few years down the line all these massive signings haven't worked out then Chelsea will have to go back to the transfer market, but with a huge dent already in their FFP allowance for that year from 5 or 6 players they signed three years ago . They can sign new players and do the same thing again, rolling their debt on for years but I wouldn't be surprised if this loophole is closed soon and then Chelsea might find they've got a team in need of a rebuild and no space to work in. They'll also definitely be getting less back on unsuccessful players now that Granovskaia has gone; she was the master of somehow convincing clubs to overpay for players who didn't work out and I doubt there's anyone filling her role to her level
    Just asking as I don't know, wouldn't Chelsea just pay up his contract to get him off the books if he's a dud and can't be sold?
    Lets face it money not been an issue there in the last decade or probably for the next.
    Expect this will come up on the "price of Football" pod, Kieran Macguire, worth a listen
    It's discussed on today's pod.  Haven't listened but judging by his recent tweets he doesn't think its wrong nor a problem.
  • edited January 16
    Cafc43v3r said:
    YTS1978 said:
    That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.
    Two sides to every coin, Chelsea had massive debt, which was all owed to RA and has been, in effect, whiped out.



    And their player farm, does indeed make a fortune.


    I think you just posted the same graph twice? ( just so you know I'm paying attention).
    I was gonna ask if anyone else spent far too long looking at both of the graphs before realising they were the same. Then about the same time confirming it.

    I eventually decided not to ask just in case they weren't the same
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!