Chelsea sign player on 8 and a half year contract !

Just ridiculous

It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.

Wasn’t Abramovich’s money seized and promised to Ukrainians … is this part of it in an underhand way or am I 2+2=80,000,000

Havent they just signed Andrey Santos from Vasco on a seven year deal as well?

I know "stats" arent everything as they're pretty meh, but until he was linked with Arsenal I'd never heard of him?

What on earth has he done to remotely justify a potential (depending on bonuses) £100m price tag?

Football has lost the plot

At least when our players do something, you know the reason is English Tax

SELR_addicks said:

If he's a dud imagine having the security to just sit on the bench at 200k a week for 8 years. 

This would be hilarious, next Winston Bogarde.

Cafc43v3r said:

It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.

Good thing is if Chelsea are having to do this, hopefully they are very close to having FFP issues  for what they are worth.

Cafc43v3r said:

It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.

What will be interesting is if a few years down the line all these massive signings haven't worked out then Chelsea will have to go back to the transfer market, but with a huge dent already in their FFP allowance for that year from 5 or 6 players they signed three years ago . They can sign new players and do the same thing again, rolling their debt on for years but I wouldn't be surprised if this loophole is closed soon and then Chelsea might find they've got a team in need of a rebuild and no space to work in. They'll also definitely be getting less back on unsuccessful players now that Granovskaia has gone; she was the master of somehow convincing clubs to overpay for players who didn't work out and I doubt there's anyone filling her role to her level

iaitch said:

Read today that they're open to offers for Raheem Sterling who they signed in the summer.

I think he's a bit out of our price range.

That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.

seem to be massively overpaying regardless… could probably have got kvaratskhelia for that and he looks the real deal

tangoflash said:

I'm obviously wrong, but I thought 5 years was the maximum allowed on a single contract 

Iñaki Williams has a 9 year contract
Raul had a life time contract at Real.

Cafc43v3r said:

YTS1978 said:

That's a big fee and a long contract, but I don't think Chelsea have any FFP issues. I may be wrong, but I thought the player farm turns in a big profit each season, so they are one of the more stable of the big clubs. Happy to be corrected though.

Two sides to every coin, Chelsea had massive debt, which was all owed to RA and has been, in effect, whiped out.



And their player farm, does indeed make a fortune.

I think you just posted the same graph twice? ( just so you know I'm paying attention).

KingKinsella said:

Garrymanilow said:

Cafc43v3r said:

It's so the amortisation is over a longer period.  If he cost £80 million that's £10 million a year for FFP purposes.  If they signed him on a 4 year contract it would "cost" double.

No matter how much of a "dud" he is they will get a lot of that back anyway.  The 8 years isn't to protect the asset in the way smaller clubs give out 3 year contracts.

What will be interesting is if a few years down the line all these massive signings haven't worked out then Chelsea will have to go back to the transfer market, but with a huge dent already in their FFP allowance for that year from 5 or 6 players they signed three years ago . They can sign new players and do the same thing again, rolling their debt on for years but I wouldn't be surprised if this loophole is closed soon and then Chelsea might find they've got a team in need of a rebuild and no space to work in. They'll also definitely be getting less back on unsuccessful players now that Granovskaia has gone; she was the master of somehow convincing clubs to overpay for players who didn't work out and I doubt there's anyone filling her role to her level

Just asking as I don't know, wouldn't Chelsea just pay up his contract to get him off the books if he's a dud and can't be sold?
Lets face it money not been an issue there in the last decade or probably for the next.
Expect this will come up on the "price of Football" pod, Kieran Macguire, worth a listen

It's discussed on today's pod.  Haven't listened but judging by his recent tweets he doesn't think its wrong nor a problem.