£100m transfer, 8 year contract. After 4 years still £50m on the balance sheet and £50m written off. So a player who is 26 years old when he signs is on the books at £50m aged 30 with 4 years left on his contract.I'm reading a lot about how they're staying within the rules by amortising over long contracts and how some people think it isn't fair. But that surely there's a risk that comes with that? Like basically they're going to be writing down these huge fees for the next 8 years meaning it leaves no room to bring in anyone else if needed. And if any of them don't turn out that great, they're still gonna have a pretty high book value in a few years time and it will difficult to move them on without making a loss. No way are they getting in the champs league next season either.
£100m transfer, 8 year contract. After 4 years still £50m on the balance sheet and £50m written off. So a player who is 26 years old when he signs is on the books at £50m aged 30 with 4 years left on his contract.
I don’t follow these transfers in detail but somebody should look at it like this.
I read somewhere that the English players at Chelsea are worried that they are first in line for the chop.
£100m transfer, 8 year contract. After 4 years still £50m on the balance sheet and £50m written off. So a player who is 26 years old when he signs is on the books at £50m aged 30 with 4 years left on his contract.
I don’t follow these transfers in detail but somebody should look at it like this.
I read somewhere that the English players at Chelsea are worried that they are first in line for the chop.
The players that were already there couldn't gel under Potter. These won't eitherGood move. If the players gel quickly you will be a dark horse