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

[terraloon]

How is this going to work with contract renewals?

Obviously the current system - we sign Grealish in 2021 to a 6 year deal, amortised to £16.6m a year. When he get's his contract renewed in 2024 and signs another 5 year deal, the remaining 50m gets spread over those 5 years, 10m/year.

So every player at every club who's been there more than 5 years still has a yearly amortisation.

If UEFA are saying you have to amortise down every signing to 0 within 5 years then it's going to pretty much cap transfers at <100m, but then if you keep a player past 5 years, you're not paying anything but wages, which really changes all the calculations around retaining them or selling them.

As I said earlier it’s not quite as straight forward as some think

 

[domalino]

As I said earlier it’s not quite as straight forward as some think

No one will ever be able to buy Haaland off us for €200m if they have to pay €40m/year amortisation plus €50m/year in wages.

 

[terraloon]

I don't remember the media scrutiny around Chelsea in 2003. I was just a young lad really and it was before the internet truly took off. But I'm sure a United or Arsenal fan, even Liverpool fan, could cite you plenty of materialthat they perceive to be evidence of a clear agenda against their club.

Following that takeover Dein accused RA of turning up on their lawn and firing off 1£20 notes the media lapped it up similarly Wenger coined the phrase financial doping following RAs purchase of the club.

Arsenal in particular were the most bitter and have been very much press darlings yet even their supporters believe that there is a concerted campaign in the press against them

The whole image and appeal of the PL has changed massively since 2003 some argue because of RA some would argue despite RA but what is beyond dispute that the duopoly that existed in the PL at that time has been well and truly broken up and the investment in the likes of Newcastle and yes even Bournemouth would not have occurred had the title been shared 95% of the tile between just two clubs and as witnessed in other leagues such as Sain

 

[domalino]

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.

Five years is no where near the average.

5 years is the legal limit to employment contract length in France & Germany which is probably why UEFA set it there. English clubs are geting a massive advantage if they can spread cost over 6,7,8 while they're stuck to 5.

 

[terraloon]

No one will ever be able to buy Haaland off us for €200m if they have to pay €40m/year amortisation plus €50m/year in wages.

But if he walked for free ( save compensation)on a Webster just three or so years into his contract and only say 50% of the fee has been amortised and say the likes of Real /PSG are happy to pay say €75 million pa which all would be allowable for FFP purposes then the transfer market would be blown wide open.

In my working day the mantra was always targets deliver behaviours and to this point none of the big clubs have really explored taken advantage in the same way as Bosman has changed things.

 

[markstephenhickey]

Clubs should be able to give what contracts they want I think.

I get the points Chelsea are spreading the cost. But they are also taking a risk in the fact they could end up stuck with flops for a long while. So its not all an upside even if the flops dont cost mega amounts per year, its still an asset they are potentially stuck with.

 

[terraloon]

5 years is the legal limit to employment contract length in France & Germany which is probably why UEFA set it there. English clubs are geting a massive advantage if they can spread cost over 6,7,8 while they're stuck to 5.

Its not UEFA that set the limit it’s FIFA.

In non EU countries FIFA won’t sanction under 18s crossing borders to sign ( save exceptional circumstances) yet in the EU countries they can.

Some rules work in your favour some don’t

 

[moomba]

5 years is the legal limit to employment contract length in France & Germany which is probably why UEFA set it there. English clubs are geting a massive advantage if they can spread cost over 6,7,8 while they're stuck to 5.

Its not really a massive advantage. A few million here and there, and pay it for longer.

Pretty sure it's not the European clubs that have a problem with Chelseas spending either. Just a couple of English clubs.

 

[domalino]

But if he walked for free ( save compensation)on a Webster just three or so years into his contract and only say 50% of the fee has been amortised and say the likes of Real /PSG are happy to pay say €75 million pa which all would be allowable for FFP purposes then the transfer market would be blown wide open.

In my working day the mantra was always targets deliver behaviours and to this point none of the big clubs have really explored taken advantage in the same way as Bosman has changed things.

IMO No club will ever sign a player using the Webster ruling because it will open a pandoras box that none of them want to see. The benefit of buying out Haaland's contract would be completely overshadowed by assets like Camavinga, Vinicius, Valverde being vulnerable to being bought for jsut the remaining value of their wages.

 

[domalino]

Its not really a massive advantage. A few million here and there, and pay it for longer.

Pretty sure it's not the European clubs that have a problem with Chelseas spending either. Just a couple of English clubs.

The fact it's UEFA not the PL being the ones to move on it says to me it's European clubs putting pressure on, not domestic rivals. Just because we've had a few briefings in the papers that the PL clubs are getting a bit upset about the goings on at Chelsea doesn't mean Bayern, PSG, Real etc. are OK with it.