These huge contracts are designed to help Chelsea stay within FFP limits because the transfer fee is spread over the life time of that players contract. If we sa Mudryk cost £70m for arguments sake, with a 8.5 year deal the transfer fee only costs Chelsea just over £8m per season. Had he been given a 4.5 year contract, that fee would cost Chelsea over £15m per season.
Winter Transfer Window 22/23
- Thread starter Bigpig
- Start date
- Status
Looks like hes waiting for backstreet boys to do a comeback tour
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,240
- Location
- Cornwall
Did he come from Shakhtar or the 90s?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,712
- Location
- Welling, London
But what if he turns out a complete flop?
Not much opportunity to buy clothes in ukraine most of the shops are rubble
Will get loaned to 4 diff clubs across the length of that contract
They have to pay him for 8.5 years. It's the risk of doing what Chelsea are doing.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,712
- Location
- Welling, London
Lmao at this photo. I don’t think I’ve seen a new signing look this miserable. He’s obviously been pushed into this.
Last edited:
“This aint the emirates”Lmao at this photo. I don’t think I’ve seen a new signing look this miserable. He’s obviously been pushed into this.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,712
- Location
- Welling, London
Is it about time there was a limit on contract length?
5 years with a year option max?
5 years with a year option max?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,252
- Location
- newcastle
Genuine question here, is it the original contract that the fee is spread over for FFP? For instance if he’s a hit and they give him a new contract next year for say 9 years does the fee then get spread over 9 years or the 7.5 remaining for the original contract?
No the limit needs to be on the wages not the contract length
Last edited:
Reminds me of 'tell me why....Ain't nothing but a Heartbreak!'
Last edited:
If a player signs a new contract whatever the outstanding balance from his original deal is then spread across the new deal. So for example if a £50m player joins a club on a 5 year deal, he costs that club £10m per year. After 3 years his value from an accounting point of view has now dropped to £20m - if he then signs a new 5 year deal, that £20m is now spread across another 5 years costing the club £4m per season.
All Chelsea have done is effectively given him two contracts instead of one. The benefit of doing that is it reduces their expenses in years 1 to 3 but in years 4 to 8 they'd be paying more than had they done things the conventional way. It all evens out in the end (from a transfer fee point of view) however doing it Chelsea's way carries the risk of being lumbered with a player that doesn't make it for much longer.
- Status