Chelsea also close to signing Pedro Neto for £60m from Wolves.... They are being run ridiculously.
Allegedly (well, with a pinch of salt from the regular Spurs ITK sources), Neto has been Ange's main target all summer, along with Eze. Allegedly a deal was being worked on. Player happy to come, personal terms agreed, etc. Looks like Mendes has stuffed Levy again, not for the first time. Surprised he'd choose Chelsea over Spurs in their current state but there you go.
So they'll have Palmer, Madueke and now Neto all fighting it out for the right wing spot now. How many wingers does one club bloody need?
Chelsea also close to signing Pedro Neto for £60m from Wolves.... They are being run ridiculously.
Allegedly (well, with a pinch of salt from the regular Spurs ITK sources), Neto has been Ange's main target all summer, along with Eze. Allegedly a deal was being worked on. Player happy to come, personal terms agreed, etc. Looks like Mendes has stuffed Levy again, not for the first time. Surprised he'd choose Chelsea over Spurs in their current state but there you go.
So they'll have Palmer, Madueke and now Neto all fighting it out for the right wing spot now. How many wingers does one club bloody need?
Chelsea also close to signing Pedro Neto for £60m from Wolves.... They are being run ridiculously.
Allegedly (well, with a pinch of salt from the regular Spurs ITK sources), Neto has been Ange's main target all summer, along with Eze. Allegedly a deal was being worked on. Player happy to come, personal terms agreed, etc. Looks like Mendes has stuffed Levy again, not for the first time. Surprised he'd choose Chelsea over Spurs in their current state but there you go.
So they'll have Palmer, Madueke and now Neto all fighting it out for the right wing spot now. How many wingers does one club bloody need?
Wouldn't be surprised if Madueke goes to Newcastle. Right Winger seems to be their main target.
De Ligt is slightly overrated if you ask me. Had amazing centre back partners all.his career really in top sides in the league. Different proposition being the main guy in a tough PL
The fee De Ligt went for was quite a bit less than either Juventus or Bayern paid for him. So either a player past his prime, for whatever reasons, or a bargain.
Chelsea want to hand Senegal striker Nicolas Jackson a two-year extension that would commit him to the club until 2033. (Telegraph - subscription required)
Chelsea want to hand Senegal striker Nicolas Jackson a two-year extension that would commit him to the club until 2033. (Telegraph - subscription required)
Palmer has just signed an improved and extended one to 2033 too. Chelsea are taking amortisation to a whole new level. Imagine if someone like Ipswich tried "pot committing" themselves to a squad on nine-year contracts, were relegated and couldn't sell all those players on £2m plus per year.
PL amortisation is limited to 5 years only now. The loop hole was shut last season when Chelsea started taking the piss. See here
Thanks. Clubs are still committed to paying those salaries for nine years though. Can't remember which club that a certain Winston Bogarde refused to move from but he made just nine appearances in four years for them!
PL amortisation is limited to 5 years only now. The loop hole was shut last season when Chelsea started taking the piss. See here
Thanks. Clubs are still committed to paying those salaries for nine years though. Can't remember which club that a certain Winston Bogarde refused to move from but he made just nine appearances in four years for them!
Oh, absolutely. I'm trying to get my head around the accounting side of it.
Player sits in the accounts as an asset on the Balance sheet.
So, for simplicities sake, a club buys a player for £100m on a 7 year contract, lets say. Following the rules of the amortisation, the value is reduced on the books by £20m a year up to 5 years, so at the end of the 5th year, the player is worth NIL on the books. So do they benefit by the player having no value on the books, when they can then presumably sell the player on for cash?
Does it make any sense to put a player on a longer contract than the amortization period?
I note Solanke has been put on a 6 year contract and the only other Spurs player put on that length of contract was Harry Kane.
I'm not sure where the rules affect the accounting numbers as well as the "FFP" numbers.
i.e. if you buy someone for £100m and give them a 10 years contract, the FFP calculation would spread the cost over 5 years, but the accounting numbers in the published accounts could still spread it over 10 years?
Comments
Chelsea have so many players on long term deals now, they'll be a nightmare to move on.
And that's before all the recent 8 year contract lot turn out to be not worth it.
Allegedly (well, with a pinch of salt from the regular Spurs ITK sources), Neto has been Ange's main target all summer, along with Eze. Allegedly a deal was being worked on. Player happy to come, personal terms agreed, etc. Looks like Mendes has stuffed Levy again, not for the first time. Surprised he'd choose Chelsea over Spurs in their current state but there you go.
So they'll have Palmer, Madueke and now Neto all fighting it out for the right wing spot now. How many wingers does one club bloody need?
Wouldn't be surprised if Madueke goes to Newcastle. Right Winger seems to be their main target.
De Ligt is younger but wonder if they reckon he'll miss too many games etc.
See here
Player sits in the accounts as an asset on the Balance sheet.
So, for simplicities sake, a club buys a player for £100m on a 7 year contract, lets say.
Following the rules of the amortisation, the value is reduced on the books by £20m a year up to 5 years, so at the end of the 5th year, the player is worth NIL on the books.
So do they benefit by the player having no value on the books, when they can then presumably sell the player on for cash?
Does it make any sense to put a player on a longer contract than the amortization period?
I note Solanke has been put on a 6 year contract and the only other Spurs player put on that length of contract was Harry Kane.
i.e. if you buy someone for £100m and give them a 10 years contract, the FFP calculation would spread the cost over 5 years, but the accounting numbers in the published accounts could still spread it over 10 years?