| More rule bending by Chelsea on 17:48 - Sep 1 with 2734 views | SheffordBlue |
They can still only amortise his contract for a maximum of 5 years so it doesn't really do anything for them for FFP purposes.
Not really sure what rule they are bending here other than protecting their asset. [Post edited 1 Sep 2024 17:54]
|  |
|  |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 17:51 - Sep 1 with 2683 views | itfc1108 |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 17:48 - Sep 1 by SheffordBlue |
They can still only amortise his contract for a maximum of 5 years so it doesn't really do anything for them for FFP purposes.
Not really sure what rule they are bending here other than protecting their asset. [Post edited 1 Sep 2024 17:54]
|
I thought it would be something about FFP, I didn't realise they weren't doing anything wrong. For once! | | | |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:01 - Sep 1 with 2544 views | FromReuserWithLove |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 17:48 - Sep 1 by SheffordBlue |
They can still only amortise his contract for a maximum of 5 years so it doesn't really do anything for them for FFP purposes.
Not really sure what rule they are bending here other than protecting their asset. [Post edited 1 Sep 2024 17:54]
|
Why on earth would they extend a 7 year contract to 9? Must some kind of fiddle going on. |  | | |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:09 - Sep 1 with 2446 views | ronnyd |
Didn't realise that he was from Senegal. With that name presumed it was West Indian of some description. Loved his shenanigans over that pen last year. | | | |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:26 - Sep 1 with 2322 views | itfc1108 |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:01 - Sep 1 by FromReuserWithLove |
Why on earth would they extend a 7 year contract to 9? Must some kind of fiddle going on. |
That's what I was thinking, but I don't like to disagree with people, even on a relatively anonymous forum! | | | |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:50 - Sep 1 with 2153 views | SheffordBlue |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:26 - Sep 1 by itfc1108 |
That's what I was thinking, but I don't like to disagree with people, even on a relatively anonymous forum! |
There might be some financial benefit to doing it e.g with such a long contract he might accept slightly lower wages on an annual basis that he might demand if the contract was shorter. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a fiddle though.
When they first started giving out really long contracts though it was to spread the transfer fee over a longer period and that loophole has now been been closed (well reduced to a maximum of 5 years). | |
| |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 19:28 - Sep 1 with 1948 views | itfc1108 |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:50 - Sep 1 by SheffordBlue |
There might be some financial benefit to doing it e.g with such a long contract he might accept slightly lower wages on an annual basis that he might demand if the contract was shorter. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a fiddle though.
When they first started giving out really long contracts though it was to spread the transfer fee over a longer period and that loophole has now been been closed (well reduced to a maximum of 5 years). |
Thanks for explaining. I think like a lot of people, I have a bit of a downer on them, and just assumed it was dodgy. | | | |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 20:55 - Sep 1 with 1603 views | BseaBlue |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 19:28 - Sep 1 by itfc1108 |
Thanks for explaining. I think like a lot of people, I have a bit of a downer on them, and just assumed it was dodgy. |
The chances of any player these days staying at a club for 9 years is slim. I'd imagine they garuantee the amount of the total contract even if player a leaves before hand and accepts a lower weekly wage. This way it will reduce the annual wage bill to make PSR easier.
There are complications though as seen with the Sterling transfer recently whereby he wanted paying up from the money he was promised, prior to the end of his contract. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 09:22 - Sep 2 with 1134 views | rickw |
| More rule bending by Chelsea on 18:01 - Sep 1 by FromReuserWithLove |
Why on earth would they extend a 7 year contract to 9? Must some kind of fiddle going on. |
I guess they can amortise the player's signing on fee (which they also get for renewing the contract) but that's not likely to be huge in terms of annual salary so only a minimal benefit |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
