Other clubs' transfers

[The College Dropout]

4 hours ago, LFEE said:

Was just thinking last night and have a feeling you’d know the answer…

 

Do you reckon the Chelsea’s idea with these 7 + year deals for young players the plan is if they work out and stay at the club for 5 years they are still at a good age to then sell in the 6th year at pure profit whilst having 2yrs minimum left on contract and therefore still hopefully get a decent chunk of money back due to fees always slowly rising with inflation?

 

I dare it would it apply if they just loan them out for 5 years for fees to various club also.

 

The only risk is demotivation or career ending injury early into contract. The upside is less power for the agent to renegotiate and what I stated above.

Chelsea have largely always done this even in the Roman era - it was just semi sensible and done at a younger and cheaper age.  They used to keep players on 2 year contracts and keep loaning them out until the fee was decent. If they didn’t re-sign Chelsea would let them rot in the reserves so players kept re-signing.  This way they already have that angle covered. That’s what they were doing to Kenedy and Atsu. 
 

I think it’s definitely financial. The £60m+ fees don’t make sense. But a lot of the signings 10-40m are likely to rise in value and can be flipped.  
 

It’s not fully coherent and there will be some major losses. Nkunku.  The Sancho thing was a waste of money and time for example.  
 

I think football clubs should have a limit on players on the books over 21 years of age. Anymore than 35 you have to release them and pay their contracts in full. 

[toon25]

Has Eze got a 60 mil release clause?

[ponsaelius]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Chelsea have largely always done this even in the Roman era - it was just semi sensible and done at a younger and cheaper age.  They used to keep players on 2 year contracts and keep loaning them out until the fee was decent. If they didn’t re-sign Chelsea would let them rot in the reserves so players kept re-signing.  This way they already have that angle covered. That’s what they were doing to Kenedy and Atsu. 
 

I think it’s definitely financial. The £60m+ fees don’t make sense. But a lot of the signings 10-40m are likely to rise in value and can be flipped.  
 

It’s not fully coherent and there will be some major losses. Nkunku.  The Sancho thing was a waste of money and time for example.  
 

I think football clubs should have a limit on players on the books over 21 years of age. Anymore than 35 you have to release them and pay their contracts in full. 

 

Definitely agree on a limit on squad sizes of players owned by the club over the age of 21 - I have said this for years. A limit on transfers per year would also make sense. Unfortunately with multi club ownership they're basically already ahead of the game on any of these rules being brought in.

 

It is a shambles though. These clubs have got themselves into position of power with huge spending headroom through previous baked in growth and revenue from pre-PSR days. It then gives them freedom to sign numerous players at the right age/price they don't need or even plan on playing, just because they're a good investment, to then be punted on for a profit. And accumulating so many players in a market where everybody is after the same profile means they actually control supply.

[toon25]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Chelsea have largely always done this even in the Roman era - it was just semi sensible and done at a younger and cheaper age.  They used to keep players on 2 year contracts and keep loaning them out until the fee was decent. If they didn’t re-sign Chelsea would let them rot in the reserves so players kept re-signing.  This way they already have that angle covered. That’s what they were doing to Kenedy and Atsu. 
 

I think it’s definitely financial. The £60m+ fees don’t make sense. But a lot of the signings 10-40m are likely to rise in value and can be flipped.  
 

It’s not fully coherent and there will be some major losses. Nkunku.  The Sancho thing was a waste of money and time for example.  
 

I think football clubs should have a limit on players on the books over 21 years of age. Anymore than 35 you have to release them and pay their contracts in full. 

 

Which I could understand given how successful they were on the pitch. 

 

This current lot, however...

[Nobody]

9 hours ago, r0cafella said:

 

Fees can only be split over 5 years the loophole was closed a couple of seasons ago. 

 

To answer Lfe question, Chelsea are betting everyone is stupid in essence. They are basically saying we don't want players to ever leave on a free. People mock it but as long as you can afford it, it'd really smart. 

 

Think of it like this, if they buy a player for say 100m and give him a 8 year contract. Once 5 years is up (saying they don't renew them) they basically become an academy player as they are fully paid off. 

 

The other side of this coin is obviously if a player decides to chuck it in and not bother but it seems a market exists for all kinds of dross these days. 

Or if they've been bought for £100m and have been caught doping and face a lengthy ban while on an 8 year contract. Something like that should be devastating for a club that hasn't even got a front of shirt sponsor, right? Right? 

[r0cafella]

8 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Or if they've been bought for £100m and have been caught doping and face a lengthy ban while on an 8 year contract. Something like that should be devastating for a club that hasn't even got a front of shirt sponsor, right? Right? 

Like any strategy you will have winners and losers and the dopper is obviously a loser, due to the PSR gaming they've done they are absolutely fine though. 

 

I don't cry about them gaming the system because everyone has the option to do it and the members refuse to close said loopholes which allow Chelsea the space. 

 

Don't hate the player and all that. 

 

And to add on (fuck you for making me defend such a pointless club btw ) they do sell players better than most and they generate much more than us given they have won both the league and champions league quite recently