Chelsea Thread - 2022/23 | Pochettino confirmed as new manager

[moomba]

Stinks of some clubs saying to UEFA "we don't want to give out long term contracts, so can you stop Chelsea doing it".

 

[KS55]

I think it’s excellent.

I dunno really, it just seems a bit arbitrary. Why 5 years , not 4 or 6? The general accounting principle is that assets are written off over their expected useful life. The more you fiddle with reality, the more complex it gets. What’s the next way round it?

 

[tommybooth]

Bingo not happy.

 

[SWP's back]

I dunno really, it just seems a bit arbitrary. Why 5 years , not 4 or 6? The general accounting principle is that assets are written off over their expected useful life. The more you fiddle with reality, the more complex it gets. What’s the next way round it?

5 tends to be the average and it’s obvious what Chelsea were trying to do.

 

[terraloon]

Uefa and the fa sticking there noses into something that’s been fine over 160years! More clubs now are in trouble because of ffp then before !

its how these archaic organisations function because quite simply they can’t grasp the facts that their rules/ laws are confused and as we witness when laws such as handball are tinkered with their attempts to solve issues does nothing other than create greater problems

Stinks of some clubs saying to UEFA "we don't want to give out long term contracts, so can you stop Chelsea doing it".

Pretty much how I see it . But clubs like Arsenal who almost certainly in the mix when it comes to those stamping their feet are more concerned because players will almost certainly want the security these long term contracts will offer .

As I pointed out earlier restrictions amortisation to 5 years throws up all sorts of other issues such as what happens if you extend deals past 5 years but also something that is often forgotten agents fees likewise are amortised.

I am not in possession of the facts but how many players whose initial fee is say over £20 million don’t have their contracts extended . Clubs have for years taken advantage of contract extension to reduce players amortisation charges.

 

[KS55]

5 tends to be the average and it’s obvious what Chelsea were trying to do.

Yes, but why shouldn’t they? It will be interesting to see whether UEFA try to make their new rule retrospective, thus catching Chelsea out. If not, the horse has bolted. CAS are waiting!

 

[terraloon]

5 tends to be the average and it’s obvious what Chelsea were trying to do.

Five years is no where near the average.

You have to break contracts into two,possibly three categories

The first is those where fees are over say £20 million. These will be long term deals are reasonably long already to 1) get value from the fee and 2) to spread the cost in accounting terms.

Second when the fee isn’t the isssue and the clubs dont want to commit to long to the players tenure. Ever see a Bosman get a 5 year deal ?

Third is academy and under 18 year olds where its a bigger gamble alinged to the 2 year restrictions.

In some respects I agree with the need for change maybe time to bin off FFP in total maybe quite simple apply proper accounting rules whereby sign a player for £80 million and you reduce their value by say 20% a year so after year one you claim depreciation (as opposed to amortisation) of £16 million (£54 residual ) value year two the numbers are depreciation £10.8 million residual £ 43.2 million. and so on

If a player has book value when they leave the club be it at the end of their or sold for a profit /loss that sum is reflected in the accounts be it a profit or a loss.

Rather than allow agents fees to be amortised those fees are shown as a one off as opposed to what I believe currently happens in that those fees are likewise amortised

 

[Vialli98]

5 tends to be the average and it’s obvious what Chelsea were trying to do.

Literally nothing wrong with what Chelsea were doing. Clubs do similar things all the time. Joao Felix signed a one year extension to his deal that already had 3 years left on it to help Atleti reduce his annual hit on the books down to just 4m. Give a guy a 5 year contract and extend it for 3 years more 1 year into that original contract I guess is going to be the new around these rules or are they going to crack down on contract extensions too?

 

[terraloon]

Yes, but why shouldn’t they? It will be interesting to see whether UEFA try to make their new rule retrospective, thus catching Chelsea out. If not, the horse has bolted. CAS are waiting!

Pretty sure not even UEFA would be mad enough to make the rule retrospective because the fall out would not just be in Chelsea it would be every club where the player where a fee was involved and the players tenure exceede 5 years would have to be re assessed

 

[SWP's back]

Stinks of some clubs saying to UEFA "we don't want to give out long term contracts, so can you stop Chelsea doing it".

Clubs can still give out long term contracts. They just can’t amortise over any term longer than 5 years.