Cole Palmer

[Vialli98]

If Palmer is as successful this season as last, then he’ll be wanting another pay rise. I don’t really understand how a 9 year deal helps the club. Palmer’s probably guaranteed £70m already.

Possibly, but I suppose it depends on the terms of his contract. If there are incentives that automatically bumps him up if he meets certain targets.

 

[Blue Army]

WTF

Making an absolute mockery of the sport.

give your head a wobble.

 

[HelloCity]

WTF

Making an absolute mockery of the sport.

Embarrassing post. The sort of over reactionary comment people make about us.

Whether it’s a good decision and line of action to take by Chelsea is one thing but it’s not ‘death of football’ because a club chooses to give a player a long contract.

 

[bluesmith]

I think Palmer signed after the change in amortisation rules, so his 40m fee was amortised over 5 years at 8m per year. Now he has signed an extended contract the remaining 32m can be amortised over the next 5 years so 6.4m a year.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

If Palmer is as successful this season as last, then he’ll be wanting another pay rise. I don’t really understand how a 9 year deal helps the club. Palmer’s probably guaranteed £70m already.

You were probably one of the bitter blues said Palmers not that good
anyway,and close thread 12 months ago.....now your going over his increased contractual wages in great detail.
Give it a rest .yawn.

 

[Vialli98]

I think Palmer signed after the change in amortisation rules, so his 40m fee was amortised over 5 years at 8m per year. Now he has signed an extended contract the remaining 32m can be amortised over the next 5 years so 6.4m a year.

Okay, so there's financial incentives to the extension from the club's perspective then. Good to know there's at least some method to the madness :)

 

[mattcity5]

I think in American sports, especially in baseball and hockey, but sometimes in basketball too, players often sign very long contracts and often continue to improve or keep high performance levels steady.

I suppose players are different, and some would lose motivation to try because they need that carrot of the next big contact dangling in front of them, but others might not be, they might appreciate the security of a long term contract and the commitment shown to them by the club.

As a fan, it's concerning in some ways because we can already see the issues with this strategy when we can see 1-2 years into an 8 year contract that a player isn't up to it (Mudryk), and then you're stuck with the player, and basically have to hope the player will be OK with reduced wages at a different club and accept a transfer.

I think this is the key point is regarding the risk. I don't have a problem with it, because it's not my team, but I'd be concerned about the approach if it was City.

We're currently lumbered with Phillips and Cancelo because of long (but not that long) contracts. Anyone can argue Phillips was a mistake, but Cancelo was brilliant to start with - as Palmer has been.

The concern for me - and this may be less of a concern to you as it just seems to be 'normal' for Chelsea - is that it gives your players more power than the manager.

If it isn't working, they know they're ok and it's the manager that will pay for the results. If a few players have long contracts like this, and don't like the manager, they'll just down tools and see who the next manager is.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You were probably one of the bitter blues said Palmers not that good
anyway,and close thread 12 months ago.....now your going over his increased contractual wages in great detail.
Give it a rest .yawn.

There’s probably a reason there isn’t any other player on a 9 year contract. Imagine he has to retire through injury? That’s a lot of money to pay. I guess the insurance cost will increase with the length of contract.

Not really sure why you’ve posted what you have in reply to me. I’ve hardly commented on Cole Palmer.

My comments are around the ridiculousness of a club giving out 9 year contracts, to whoever they have.

 

[Vialli98]

I think this is the key point is regarding the risk. I don't have a problem with it, because it's not my team, but I'd be concerned about the approach if it was City.

We're currently lumbered with Phillips and Cancelo because of long (but not that long) contracts. Anyone can argue Phillips was a mistake, but Cancelo was brilliant to start with - as Palmer has been.

The concern for me - and this may be less of a concern to you as it just seems to be 'normal' for Chelsea - is that it gives your players more power than the manager.

If it isn't working, they know they're ok and it's the manager that will pay for the results. If a few players have long contracts like this, and don't like the manager, they'll just down tools and see who the next manager is.

No, I agree with you. I just wanted to attempt to point out that, although it is incredibly risky, it can work out and be a positive thing for player and club.

But you're right of course. It's a huge risk.

 

[Sibierskii]

give your head a wobble.

A 9 year contract on 170 grand a week hahaha, you give your head a wobble.