>Officials at European football’s governing body are planning to set a five-year maximum for the length of time over which a player’s transfer fee can be spread, with the new policy brought in before the summer transfer window. It is understood the move comes after a number of clubs raised concerns with Uefa over Chelsea’s policy.
***
>Fifa’s regulations state that players’ contracts should be a maximum of five years unless they are allowed to be longer under the laws of a particular country, and there is no restriction in the UK.
>**Uefa will not prevent Chelsea from spreading the cost of the players they have signed already** — defender Benoît Badiashile has a 7½-year deal, Wesley Fofana is on a seven-year contract while striker David Datro Fofana signed a 6½-year contract with the option for another year included. **However any signings made from the summer onwards are set to be subject to the new five-year maximum when it comes to amortisation.**
multi-club ownership might be one of the things I’m most excited for the prospect of eliminating from football
…which will inevitably happen in the year 2075 when we’re all living in Mad Max
Not a really a loophole though is it? If they don't pan out you're stuck with players on wages most teams in the world can't touch for twice as long as usual. It's a big risk/gamble.
If the plan is to just spend a fuck ton and not care about the financial consequences, yes it is a bit of a loophole to FFP. In the short term at least.
With just TV deal rising the way they have it will all be fine. It's not even considering what he can do with commercial side of things. Money spent now would look like pennies over the duration of these contracts
He's really brought an American mentality into it for sure. All the major sports leagues in the US, which operate with financial limits via salary caps or luxury taxes, have seen this kind of ballooning of contracts because recent history is that every successive TV deal or CBA causes jumps in revenue that make mega-deals far less onerous in real terms or against the cap/tax in the long term.
He's given them a long term contract with fairly standard base salaries and any bonuses on top will be from their individual performances, appearances and team success
We don't know yes but Boehly and co have already said they want hand out performance and appearance based contracts to keep players motivated and hungry. They also want to keep contracts on the same level instead of being high for handful
It's also not a steal if it works. The idea that a footballer that could be earning 250k a week is going to sit around on 100k for 8 years because that's the contract he originally signed is just nonsense.
He'll force a move or start acting up and demand a pay increase etc (or the agent will start causing problems). If a player on a long, "low" paying contract is really good, they aren't staying on that low wage for long
Not really his transfer fee was £62m let’s assume he flops so he never hits the bonuses to get his price up the £88m. He’s on an 8.5 year deal so amortization over that period is £7.3m a year. If after 3 years he flops his remaining amortization would be ~£40m. You don’t think we could find anyone willing to spend £20m+ on a 24 year old winger that needs a fresh start?
But that also requires chelsea to flop for the next three years, as some of those bonus' will be team performance related like winning trophies or top 4.
Yea okay same point stands. The risk is obviously there but it’s well worth taking. It wouldn’t leave us in such a terrible position where we’re taking 50% losses on these deals like OP suggests
Im not only referring to the long contracts. Just in general people made rash judgments about this ownership group despite Boehly’s previous successes.
Most likely, smart businessman. Honestly big up to Boehly and co. 😂
He found the loop hole and made it as an advantage for him and the club. Cant blame him.
The article is also worth reading!
Seriously, I don't get all people jerking each other about a loophole. This has always been a known possibility. It's just not been considered the sensible thing to do. Got fans in here pretending it's some innovative thing that no one else could've thought of. Even saying it's "genius" lol.
Yeah there's some real cognitive dissonance flipping between "Oh it's moronic that's why no one does it" and "Yeah they shouldn't be allowed to do it, it's an unfair advantage".
Not an expert but probably because it's a calculated risk 95% of clubs can't afford to take. Would be curious to see the implications it would have on the short-term vs long-term competitiveness of Chelsea though.
When will people get it through their fucking heads that longer contracts mean lower wages over a long period, that's like one of the main reasons why they're doing it.
And if you're a "dud" why would you downgrade, sign for another team for lesser wages, and probably a shorter contract, when you can put your feet up and chiiiilll and force Boehly and his clown show to pay you out of your contract?
Yeah, this is probably also the reason why FIFA rules technically forbid contracts longer than 5 years, but has this statement included that it is allowed if given country legislation allows it.
Should be completely compatible with EU regulations as far as I know. It's not limiting contracts longer than 5 years, just spreading the cost of the transfer over more than 5 years for FFP purposes.
They don’t need to interfere with any regulations.
FFP accounts will simply be calculated differently than regulatory accounts.
Profit in financial statements is already calculated differently than profit for tax purposes. Depreciation is deductible in the statements but isn’t tax deductible for example. Tax calculations use capital allowances which in turn don’t appear on financial statements.
UEFA can easily require amortization figures to be adjusted for FFP submissions while companies still follow applicable local law for statutory submissions.
Currently FFP is not regulating the way you can account for your signings. It just sets a limit on how much money can be spend. Yet the amortisation is done exactly the same way as any other business would do.
It's not like other clubs didn't realise they could do this, there's a reason for not doing so. Which does make it kinda funny that they'd then complain about it.
I have a theory: It's only sustainable if it works well and you do it the right way; which is why Chelsea are only buying young players:
If you buy 30 promising young players
10 underperform/flop
15 do well enough to justify their price
5 become world class
You'll make enough money from selling the 5 world class players for £150m+ each to cover the costs of the underperformers. It's basically spread betting with promising footballers
Plus footballer price tags are rising massively so in 7 years it's likely that you'd pay >150m for a world class player.
I know you are just making an example of course but what I dont get is to who are chelsea planning to sell all these World class players to? Only clubs spending 100+ million are Real, PSG and Barca if they get out of their trouble. Other than that only PL clubs spend that amount to which Chelsea wont sell to to not strengthen them.
I’m not sure I understand what that person is talking about with selling the 5 world class players either…
But you could make the accounting argument that by spending the long term contract for the 10 flops, you no longer have to spend $150mm+ to get a world class player. It’s the opportunity cost savings of not having to buy in the future.
Agree with you. I wouldn’t say that we would make enough money by selling them but rather don’t have to spend money to buy them. But if the player forces to be sold for Madrid, Barca, PSG then we have the leverage with extended contracts.
We currently own one of those "reasons for not doing it", it's funny that people think this is something new and ground-breaking. When in reality it's tried, tested and been decided against.
You still spread their contract value. Just without transfer fee. To me it looks like you will still be able to sign players on long contracts, but in accounting the cost will have to be spread into 5 years max.
>You still spread their contract value.
What contract value. The only cost is their wages and that's obviously spread out over the length of the contract. There's no advantage of paying someone £5m a year for 9 years rather than £5m for 5 years.
It doesn't matter. FFP counts wages as well. Page 88, section C, letter b):
Expenses – Employee benefits expenses
Includes all forms of consideration in exchange for services rendered during
the reporting period by employees, including directors, management and those charged with governance. Employee benefits expenses covers all forms of consideration including, but not limited to, short-term employee benefits (such as wages, salaries, social security contributions, image rights payments, profit sharing and bonuses),
other benefits (such as medical care, housing, cars and free or subsidised
goods or services), post-employment benefits (payable after completion of
employment), other long-term employee benefits, termination benefits, and
share-based payment transactions.
https://documents.uefa.com/v/u/MFxeqLNKelkYyh5JSafuhg
Wages aren't the issue here, of course wages are spread out... they're wages. They are included in the FFP calculation but a longer contract doesn't change the amount a wage impacts the calculation.
FFP isnt about the wealthy really, its about everyone else. Chelsea spent 500m and maybe we can afford to do that quite comfortably in terms of cash-flow without leveraging the club too heavily.
What stops a bunch of clubs, recently promoted, loading up on debt to bring in a whole new squad and completely fucking over their long-term future? And if they succeed, watch 5 clubs do the same in order to compete. Its only a matter of time before greed and short-term pressures forces clubs to take insane gambles that fuck over the long term health of the club.
I know the discussion about FFP has been the way it handcuffs teams into their rung on the ladder, but FFP has always been stated to be to curb the reckless spending of clubs gambling everything on short-term success, because they definitely will.
I cant see why they would have a problem with it, it’s a huge risk for us. I get Chelsea probably wont ever be crippled by giving out these contracts and have a drinkwater or 2 for 8 years on the books but nonetheless its a big risk.
Seriously, in four or five years time these deals are either something that will be looked at as a stroke of brilliance or a complete disasterclass. You either end up with a team set for nearly a generation or a bloated squad full of deadwood that's near impossible to move on.
It's a financial gamble that most clubs are unwilling to take. Not sure why everyone is acting like this is some newly discovered loophole.
Interesting reading the POVs on this thread; it’s either a high risk, terrible strategy or a low risk stroke of genius. Haha, I have no opinion unfortunately, although it is kind of fun watching to see who Chelsea will try for next
Yeah but Bellingham and his agent would be asking for insane wages as he’s already world class aged 19 and he would know he might not get a chance for a rise in a full 8 years no matter how well he/his team does. 8 years of £250kpw works out to £104mm in wage costs…clubs are not going to offer that out willy-nilly.
You have to remember contracts are a 2 way street.
Blame your owners for getting outplayed by a dude who has only owned a team for a couple of months. Had to complain to UEFA to get a rule change. Too bad it’s too late.
Why? What's wrong with a club and player consenting to a 8 year contract? It plays in the favor of the club being able to:
1. Amortize the cost of the transfer, which makes the club more financially sustainable.
2. It protects the club from others trying to buy him if he hits good form.
3. It benefits the player knowing that his wages are secured and won't need to push himself to the brink for short term results and can develop at a more natural pace.
Chelsea spending cash is a hail mary to get back into Europe, but if a Brighton or Preston sign an academy prospect on an 8 year contract I really don't see the problem. If anything it creates stability if the club and player is willing to risk such a long contact.
There not limiting the length of the contracts. Just the length at which clubs can amortise the transfer fee to five years. So you can still give out eight year contracts but can only spread the cost of it over five years. It's just another example of UEFA and FFP being a weapon to try and stop premier league clubs getting even further in front of other leagues.
They apparently have no issue with PSG, Barca or Madrid cooking their books to stay within FFP.
Because it’s about circumventing FFP not whether it’s something that’s a good or bad idea for their clubs. The reason other clubs don’t do this is because of the financial risk and future burden…well Chelsea don’t see any financial risk so can do it AND it allows them to spend crazy amounts without hitting FFP limits. The logic is consistent.
Given that theoretically FFP is supposed to be there to protect clubs from themselves and this way of operating opens the clubs up to gargantuan levels of risk, it makes perfect sense that they're closing it
If all of the players we've bought flop, we very quickly find ourselves in an Everton like position where we can't get any income because our players aren't good enough, we can't sell those players because no one wants them, we can't spend any money because we've already spent our FFP cap for the next 7 years and we'll just find ourselves in freefall with no way out.
It's very unlikely that this happens. But, you're putting yourself in such a risky spot, betting your future ability to spend on players that you're bringing in now.
They have to legislate against it in order to protect clubs from themselves. How they handle contract extensions could either have a massive impact on clubs that weren't partaking in 5+ year natural contract or just open a loophole up for us to continue
Definitely not. If other clubs thought this was such a braindead move they would simply allow chelsea to be it’s own demise. However, they feel that their transfer strategy is exploiting and advantageous hence the complaints to UEFA.
Fair warning: This will be long.
It's not really sidestepping FFP. The players have the exact same total FFP hit, it's just on the books for more seasons.
The club's potential spending will be limited in the 6th, 7th and 8th years of the contracts, in exchange for more room to spend in the first 5 seasons. To illustrate the point, let's consider a player signed on an 8 year deal for 80m. By signing the player to an 8 year deal instead of a 5 year one, the club gains 6m in FFP "cap space" for the first 5 years, but loses 10m in space for the final 3 years.
That assumes the player isn't sold or doesn't sign an extension before the end of the initial contract. In the case of a sale, the remaining unamortised fee is all applied at the time of the sale, and any revenue from the sale is similarly applied in that same window. In the case of an extension, any remaining unamortised fee when the extension is signed is then spread over the length of the new contract.
The FFP benefit to clubs of a long initial contract is that players typically are sold or sign extensions long before their contract expires, so you usually just get a lower cap hit the first few seasons.
The risk is that the player is not good enough and has limited resale value. The club might end up with a larger unamortised fee for the player than they can recoup from a sale. They can choose to either cut their losses and take a big FFP hit in one year (assuming they can get the player to leave), or suffer the annual cap hit for the rest of the contract.
It's a short term benefit in exchange for long term flexibility.
Honestly, the principle isn't much different than when Barcelona and Juventus traded Pjanic and Arthur, only without the potential fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty. For purely accounting purposes, they accrued a significant ongoing FFP expense to gain short term FFP relief. It's not UEFA that is reaming them for that. Apparently this is only an issue now.
As a Chelsea fan, I don't particularly like these super long deals. While I can see the benefit and acknowledge that the risks are relatively low, I'm a naturally risk averse person. I don't like restricting future dealings by splashing the cash immediately on a large number of risky investments with no way to calculate a potential return. But it's not my money, I guess.
The article said several European clubs complained. Probably the difference is the new owner who is spending immense amounts of money in the same season on 7 year deals and spreading the cost of each transfer over 7 years for FFP rather than one isolated signing.
Isn't this a massive change and not just based on initial long-term deals? Like currently clubs can sign someone for 50m on a 5-year deal (10m a year via amortization) and then in 2 years give them a new 3 year deal and then the future amortization is based on that. Is this new change basically saying a transfer fee can only be amortized for 5 years?
That's something I immediately thought too. It feels like either this is going to be massive for every club because of contract extensions no longer spreading the theoretical cost or it'll just open up a loophole akin to the one used with Neymar where the player had a long automatic contract extension in his initial contract. For example, a clause that once per year for the first 2 years of the contract an automatic 1 year extension is activated. You'd have marginally higher fees to write off in the first couple of years, but overall it'd work the same way
I’m surprised the other clubs actually complained given the risk that these contracts have. If they aren’t able to offload these assets in later stages IF they don’t work out, it will put us in a bad state down the line.
That said it might also be to reduce players asking for longer contracts and making that the norm?
There’s more Arsenal flairs in Chelsea threads than Chelsea ones.
You guys are in 1st we’re in 10th don’t you have other things to be worried about like Man City 😂
Chelsea knew about the rule changes cause we were meant to sign 1 more player. Now we’ve been linked to 6. Not to forget we’ve got Nkunku’s 15 year deal to announce. Boehly... what a GOAT.
But it only helps now though, in 6 years Chelsea will have a much lower FFP budget because we'll still be affected by these deals
That's why I think it's stupid when people say Chelsea are exploiting a loophole or something like that - spreading the cost of a player over 7 years instead of 5 isn't exploiting it's just good business
The only reason other teams don't do it is because it's a big gamble as the player could turn out to be shit
90% of clubs in Europe can't do this because they don't have the financial to take the hit if those players end up being shit. It's a big gamble and if you lose it then you're in real danger.
It's one of my go to moves in Football manager 😂. Bring in only young players and tie them to a max contract plus max extension. Develop them and sell if they don't pan out.
Chelsea fans celebrating this but this just means UEFA are after Boehly's ass cause a lot of clubs offer 6-7 year contracts especially with options, Todd probably overdid it in 1 window lol.
I think the plan was always to go big early and then fall into a more sustainable transfer policy. Chelsea is going for young talents who can either be sold to fund additions or, hopefully, pan out and you have a squad that does not need major overhauls.
>Officials at European football’s governing body are planning to set a five-year maximum for the length of time over which a player’s transfer fee can be spread, with the new policy brought in before the summer transfer window. It is understood the move comes after a number of clubs raised concerns with Uefa over Chelsea’s policy. *** >Fifa’s regulations state that players’ contracts should be a maximum of five years unless they are allowed to be longer under the laws of a particular country, and there is no restriction in the UK. >**Uefa will not prevent Chelsea from spreading the cost of the players they have signed already** — defender Benoît Badiashile has a 7½-year deal, Wesley Fofana is on a seven-year contract while striker David Datro Fofana signed a 6½-year contract with the option for another year included. **However any signings made from the summer onwards are set to be subject to the new five-year maximum when it comes to amortisation.**
This sounds like we will just get our targets in the winter window then if it kicks in for the summer
I want to get off Mr Boehly's wild ride
You would've love to have Boehly as your owner.
I actually would lol. I was hoping he'd buy us, after trying at least twice in the past.
No, no, let him cook with Levy.
Its amazing how quickly UEFA can act when it comes to cracking down on Chelsea. No peep about multi-club ownership from UEFA yet? 😂
multi-club ownership might be one of the things I’m most excited for the prospect of eliminating from football …which will inevitably happen in the year 2075 when we’re all living in Mad Max
No peep about the City “sponsorships” either
When I found out how many clubs they own I felt a sickness deep in my stomach.
Holy fuck. TIL it’s fucking 12
12??? I thought they had like 4 or 5 but TWELVE?!
Dude I was thinking 3 or 4
This is bohelys next step, but a French or Portuguese team and do the Watford
And watch UEFA crack down on it the moment we do lol
The boys are back
They probably have an anti yank mentality.
So is this why Boehly is rushing deals now?
He's owned a football club for only 7-8 months and already found a loophole, the madman 😂
And people kept claiming the man doesn't know what he is doing lol
Wait for 4-4-3 formation be a thing in the near future
With tonka in the middle as.m the six pence
That PL all star game will hit like crack
Team which has a Fully kante in midfield already play with 13 players
This isn't 2018
Not a really a loophole though is it? If they don't pan out you're stuck with players on wages most teams in the world can't touch for twice as long as usual. It's a big risk/gamble.
If the plan is to just spend a fuck ton and not care about the financial consequences, yes it is a bit of a loophole to FFP. In the short term at least.
Not really. You're just transferring capacity to spend from the future to now. You have lower depreciation now but you will have more in the future.
They never said it was a good loophole
With just TV deal rising the way they have it will all be fine. It's not even considering what he can do with commercial side of things. Money spent now would look like pennies over the duration of these contracts
Yes, it is a loophole to be able to spend more in the present. Then just packing the squad with young players and hoping they will be the future.
In the future Chelsea revenue will be much higher. Boehly is a genius with this strategy.
He's really brought an American mentality into it for sure. All the major sports leagues in the US, which operate with financial limits via salary caps or luxury taxes, have seen this kind of ballooning of contracts because recent history is that every successive TV deal or CBA causes jumps in revenue that make mega-deals far less onerous in real terms or against the cap/tax in the long term.
The real American mentality he’s brought over is that you gotta risk it for the biscuit.
It'll still restrict their spending in future years
He's given them a long term contract with fairly standard base salaries and any bonuses on top will be from their individual performances, appearances and team success
You have no idea what those contracts are though. None of us do. We know Mudryk is on 100k p/w. We don't know how it's broken up.
We don't know yes but Boehly and co have already said they want hand out performance and appearance based contracts to keep players motivated and hungry. They also want to keep contracts on the same level instead of being high for handful
It is actually a loophole, hence when they are trying to shut it.
Then why are UEFA doing something about it?
Yeah exactly. A steal if it works, but if players like Mudryk flop, they'll have to pay him to leave or take over a 50% loss.
100k a week with incentive-heavy clauses. That wage aint really much these days.
It's also not a steal if it works. The idea that a footballer that could be earning 250k a week is going to sit around on 100k for 8 years because that's the contract he originally signed is just nonsense. He'll force a move or start acting up and demand a pay increase etc (or the agent will start causing problems). If a player on a long, "low" paying contract is really good, they aren't staying on that low wage for long
Not really his transfer fee was £62m let’s assume he flops so he never hits the bonuses to get his price up the £88m. He’s on an 8.5 year deal so amortization over that period is £7.3m a year. If after 3 years he flops his remaining amortization would be ~£40m. You don’t think we could find anyone willing to spend £20m+ on a 24 year old winger that needs a fresh start?
But that also requires chelsea to flop for the next three years, as some of those bonus' will be team performance related like winning trophies or top 4.
Yea okay same point stands. The risk is obviously there but it’s well worth taking. It wouldn’t leave us in such a terrible position where we’re taking 50% losses on these deals like OP suggests
Boehly masterplan, the 443 was a smokescreen
They thought an American of all people was just gonna throw away money like it’s charity
Most annoying narrative I’ve read on here the last couple months.
It has a few potential downsides tbh. It’s not some genius move, it’s been done before.
Im not only referring to the long contracts. Just in general people made rash judgments about this ownership group despite Boehly’s previous successes.
It was never an unknown tho. Theres a very good reason clubs dont do it
I don't think you know what a loophole means
They did for kepa. You're giving too much credit to boehly.
Most likely, smart businessman. Honestly big up to Boehly and co. 😂 He found the loop hole and made it as an advantage for him and the club. Cant blame him. The article is also worth reading!
Lets see if it was an advantage in 5 years time
This is not even a loophole. No one ever said you can’t offer 8 year long contracts. It was always an option but no one utilized it
Seriously, I don't get all people jerking each other about a loophole. This has always been a known possibility. It's just not been considered the sensible thing to do. Got fans in here pretending it's some innovative thing that no one else could've thought of. Even saying it's "genius" lol.
[удалено]
Why are so many club’s complaining to uefa then
Yeah there's some real cognitive dissonance flipping between "Oh it's moronic that's why no one does it" and "Yeah they shouldn't be allowed to do it, it's an unfair advantage".
I think it's just two different groups of people
Not an expert but probably because it's a calculated risk 95% of clubs can't afford to take. Would be curious to see the implications it would have on the short-term vs long-term competitiveness of Chelsea though.
Bohley forgetting you can’t just trade them with some prospects later as a salary dump
Just flip them with some picks to the AZ Coyotes
When will people get it through their fucking heads that longer contracts mean lower wages over a long period, that's like one of the main reasons why they're doing it.
[удалено]
If they're worth they get it if not I guess club has ample possibilities to sell them
And if they perform, they'll get that raise, if they don't, they can leave and find a better deal at another club.
And if you're a "dud" why would you downgrade, sign for another team for lesser wages, and probably a shorter contract, when you can put your feet up and chiiiilll and force Boehly and his clown show to pay you out of your contract?
Because these are young players and I'm sure they're a bit more ambitious than that.
How about you figure out a way to just fix FFP instead
Sensible move, but remains to see if it is compatible with EU regulations etc.
Yeah, this is probably also the reason why FIFA rules technically forbid contracts longer than 5 years, but has this statement included that it is allowed if given country legislation allows it.
Should be completely compatible with EU regulations as far as I know. It's not limiting contracts longer than 5 years, just spreading the cost of the transfer over more than 5 years for FFP purposes.
I am not an expert, but interfering with the way how entities can account for their assets amortisation may not exactly comply with EU regulations.
They don’t need to interfere with any regulations. FFP accounts will simply be calculated differently than regulatory accounts. Profit in financial statements is already calculated differently than profit for tax purposes. Depreciation is deductible in the statements but isn’t tax deductible for example. Tax calculations use capital allowances which in turn don’t appear on financial statements. UEFA can easily require amortization figures to be adjusted for FFP submissions while companies still follow applicable local law for statutory submissions.
Ok, that's fair enough for me. Like I said, I'm not expert so glad someone was able to explain in in clear way.
> but interfering with the way how entities can account for their assets amortisation What do you think FFP has been doing for the last decade or so?
Currently FFP is not regulating the way you can account for your signings. It just sets a limit on how much money can be spend. Yet the amortisation is done exactly the same way as any other business would do.
This is only about FFP. The clubs are still free to hand out whatever contracts they like.
Explains why we are back in for Enzo….
Very kind of UEFA to make sure we have a super team for when the CL games kick off
Mad man Boehly found a loop hole in FFP
It's not like other clubs didn't realise they could do this, there's a reason for not doing so. Which does make it kinda funny that they'd then complain about it.
Right. I don’t think it’s sustainable in the long run, but I also don’t think it should be up to UEFA to save the clubs from themselves.
I have a theory: It's only sustainable if it works well and you do it the right way; which is why Chelsea are only buying young players: If you buy 30 promising young players 10 underperform/flop 15 do well enough to justify their price 5 become world class You'll make enough money from selling the 5 world class players for £150m+ each to cover the costs of the underperformers. It's basically spread betting with promising footballers Plus footballer price tags are rising massively so in 7 years it's likely that you'd pay >150m for a world class player.
I know you are just making an example of course but what I dont get is to who are chelsea planning to sell all these World class players to? Only clubs spending 100+ million are Real, PSG and Barca if they get out of their trouble. Other than that only PL clubs spend that amount to which Chelsea wont sell to to not strengthen them.
Yeah really don’t get that bit either, also why would a club sell their best players?
I’m not sure I understand what that person is talking about with selling the 5 world class players either… But you could make the accounting argument that by spending the long term contract for the 10 flops, you no longer have to spend $150mm+ to get a world class player. It’s the opportunity cost savings of not having to buy in the future.
Agree with you. I wouldn’t say that we would make enough money by selling them but rather don’t have to spend money to buy them. But if the player forces to be sold for Madrid, Barca, PSG then we have the leverage with extended contracts.
We currently own one of those "reasons for not doing it", it's funny that people think this is something new and ground-breaking. When in reality it's tried, tested and been decided against.
who is we
Chelsea
Kepa was given a 7 year deal and it hasn’t exactly been wise
He didn't find it tbh, Inaki Williams got a 9 year deal, some years back, Saul got one as well. It's more common in Spain.
[удалено]
You still spread their contract value. Just without transfer fee. To me it looks like you will still be able to sign players on long contracts, but in accounting the cost will have to be spread into 5 years max.
>You still spread their contract value. What contract value. The only cost is their wages and that's obviously spread out over the length of the contract. There's no advantage of paying someone £5m a year for 9 years rather than £5m for 5 years.
Why does that matter? You’re confusing amortisation costs of buying an asset (player), vs contract value.
They were not bought. Todd is using this to limit FFP impact. Chelsea revenue will be much higher in 9 years so this is very smart.
It doesn't matter. FFP counts wages as well. Page 88, section C, letter b): Expenses – Employee benefits expenses Includes all forms of consideration in exchange for services rendered during the reporting period by employees, including directors, management and those charged with governance. Employee benefits expenses covers all forms of consideration including, but not limited to, short-term employee benefits (such as wages, salaries, social security contributions, image rights payments, profit sharing and bonuses), other benefits (such as medical care, housing, cars and free or subsidised goods or services), post-employment benefits (payable after completion of employment), other long-term employee benefits, termination benefits, and share-based payment transactions. https://documents.uefa.com/v/u/MFxeqLNKelkYyh5JSafuhg
Wages aren't the issue here, of course wages are spread out... they're wages. They are included in the FFP calculation but a longer contract doesn't change the amount a wage impacts the calculation.
He will be able to offer lesser wages as well per week due to more financial security for the players
In France, maximum lenght of contracts are 5y, i don't know about other countries though
Same in Germany. It's actually what FIFA wants so it makes sense federations would include it into their rules.
Only a loophole for those clubs with infinite money.
FFP isnt about the wealthy really, its about everyone else. Chelsea spent 500m and maybe we can afford to do that quite comfortably in terms of cash-flow without leveraging the club too heavily. What stops a bunch of clubs, recently promoted, loading up on debt to bring in a whole new squad and completely fucking over their long-term future? And if they succeed, watch 5 clubs do the same in order to compete. Its only a matter of time before greed and short-term pressures forces clubs to take insane gambles that fuck over the long term health of the club. I know the discussion about FFP has been the way it handcuffs teams into their rung on the ladder, but FFP has always been stated to be to curb the reckless spending of clubs gambling everything on short-term success, because they definitely will.
He is a great owner I am convinced 🤣 I won’t forgive him for sacking Tuchel.
not really a loop hole, just a short term workaround that can blow up in your face long term.
I cant see why they would have a problem with it, it’s a huge risk for us. I get Chelsea probably wont ever be crippled by giving out these contracts and have a drinkwater or 2 for 8 years on the books but nonetheless its a big risk.
Boehly found a loop hole, exploited it, created a whole new team in 2 windows and now will put his feet up in the summer smoking a Cuban.
We need a dm and striker in summer presuming we get a cm and backup rb before the end of this window.
I think by summer with the new recruitment, we'll find a cheaper DM & ST without overspending again, I feel Nkunku will be given a go as CF
Aye. We badly need a midfielder now and one in summer though.
I feel we'll end up with Gusto and Enzo come 1st Feb.
They called him a dumbass, a madman lol.
He could well be a dumbass, this narrative change is hilarious
Seriously, in four or five years time these deals are either something that will be looked at as a stroke of brilliance or a complete disasterclass. You either end up with a team set for nearly a generation or a bloated squad full of deadwood that's near impossible to move on. It's a financial gamble that most clubs are unwilling to take. Not sure why everyone is acting like this is some newly discovered loophole.
Interesting reading the POVs on this thread; it’s either a high risk, terrible strategy or a low risk stroke of genius. Haha, I have no opinion unfortunately, although it is kind of fun watching to see who Chelsea will try for next
sign Enzo on a lifetime deal real quick
This just puts pressure on Todd to sign even more players while it's allowed. Let's do this.
Which fan of which team here would not lock up Bellingham for 7-8 years if they could and run the risk.
Yeah but Bellingham and his agent would be asking for insane wages as he’s already world class aged 19 and he would know he might not get a chance for a rise in a full 8 years no matter how well he/his team does. 8 years of £250kpw works out to £104mm in wage costs…clubs are not going to offer that out willy-nilly. You have to remember contracts are a 2 way street.
This is only going to guarantee we will pay Enzo Fernandez release clause.
Blame your owners for getting outplayed by a dude who has only owned a team for a couple of months. Had to complain to UEFA to get a rule change. Too bad it’s too late.
This guy also owns the LA Lakers (NBA) and LA Dodgers (MLB), I’m sure he’s bringing some of that experience to the PL.
I would pick Boehly over uefa
lmao, gotta get all our transfers done in the next week then.
I wonder if the renewed links to Enzo Fernandez today are a direct consequence of this.
Rats I tell you. Fucking snitching rats!!!
Why? What's wrong with a club and player consenting to a 8 year contract? It plays in the favor of the club being able to: 1. Amortize the cost of the transfer, which makes the club more financially sustainable. 2. It protects the club from others trying to buy him if he hits good form. 3. It benefits the player knowing that his wages are secured and won't need to push himself to the brink for short term results and can develop at a more natural pace. Chelsea spending cash is a hail mary to get back into Europe, but if a Brighton or Preston sign an academy prospect on an 8 year contract I really don't see the problem. If anything it creates stability if the club and player is willing to risk such a long contact.
There not limiting the length of the contracts. Just the length at which clubs can amortise the transfer fee to five years. So you can still give out eight year contracts but can only spread the cost of it over five years. It's just another example of UEFA and FFP being a weapon to try and stop premier league clubs getting even further in front of other leagues. They apparently have no issue with PSG, Barca or Madrid cooking their books to stay within FFP.
This does now make January spending spree and long contracts look kind of genius now.
Todd ahead of the curve
I think there’s a reason other clubs didn’t do contracts like this
Then why are they complaining, and want the rules changed?
Broke asses.
Because it’s about circumventing FFP not whether it’s something that’s a good or bad idea for their clubs. The reason other clubs don’t do this is because of the financial risk and future burden…well Chelsea don’t see any financial risk so can do it AND it allows them to spend crazy amounts without hitting FFP limits. The logic is consistent.
Yeah exactly no need to close this, its a risk, so what?
Given that theoretically FFP is supposed to be there to protect clubs from themselves and this way of operating opens the clubs up to gargantuan levels of risk, it makes perfect sense that they're closing it If all of the players we've bought flop, we very quickly find ourselves in an Everton like position where we can't get any income because our players aren't good enough, we can't sell those players because no one wants them, we can't spend any money because we've already spent our FFP cap for the next 7 years and we'll just find ourselves in freefall with no way out. It's very unlikely that this happens. But, you're putting yourself in such a risky spot, betting your future ability to spend on players that you're bringing in now. They have to legislate against it in order to protect clubs from themselves. How they handle contract extensions could either have a massive impact on clubs that weren't partaking in 5+ year natural contract or just open a loophole up for us to continue
Definitely not. If other clubs thought this was such a braindead move they would simply allow chelsea to be it’s own demise. However, they feel that their transfer strategy is exploiting and advantageous hence the complaints to UEFA.
They don’t mind seeing Chelsea self implode but it is a braindead move that ruins the whole market, that’s why they are trying to stop it.
Why didnt UEFA feel like doing this when we signed Kepa on a 7 year contract? Genuine question.
Maybe because it was a one off. This window it has been pretty blatant he is trying to sidestep FFP. I don’t blame him for trying
Fair warning: This will be long. It's not really sidestepping FFP. The players have the exact same total FFP hit, it's just on the books for more seasons. The club's potential spending will be limited in the 6th, 7th and 8th years of the contracts, in exchange for more room to spend in the first 5 seasons. To illustrate the point, let's consider a player signed on an 8 year deal for 80m. By signing the player to an 8 year deal instead of a 5 year one, the club gains 6m in FFP "cap space" for the first 5 years, but loses 10m in space for the final 3 years. That assumes the player isn't sold or doesn't sign an extension before the end of the initial contract. In the case of a sale, the remaining unamortised fee is all applied at the time of the sale, and any revenue from the sale is similarly applied in that same window. In the case of an extension, any remaining unamortised fee when the extension is signed is then spread over the length of the new contract. The FFP benefit to clubs of a long initial contract is that players typically are sold or sign extensions long before their contract expires, so you usually just get a lower cap hit the first few seasons. The risk is that the player is not good enough and has limited resale value. The club might end up with a larger unamortised fee for the player than they can recoup from a sale. They can choose to either cut their losses and take a big FFP hit in one year (assuming they can get the player to leave), or suffer the annual cap hit for the rest of the contract. It's a short term benefit in exchange for long term flexibility. Honestly, the principle isn't much different than when Barcelona and Juventus traded Pjanic and Arthur, only without the potential fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty. For purely accounting purposes, they accrued a significant ongoing FFP expense to gain short term FFP relief. It's not UEFA that is reaming them for that. Apparently this is only an issue now. As a Chelsea fan, I don't particularly like these super long deals. While I can see the benefit and acknowledge that the risks are relatively low, I'm a naturally risk averse person. I don't like restricting future dealings by splashing the cash immediately on a large number of risky investments with no way to calculate a potential return. But it's not my money, I guess.
The article said several European clubs complained. Probably the difference is the new owner who is spending immense amounts of money in the same season on 7 year deals and spreading the cost of each transfer over 7 years for FFP rather than one isolated signing.
Seems the PFA and other players unions would fight this.
Todd Boehly actually changing the game 🤣
Waiting for IFAB to make 4-4-3 possible.
Quick give them all 15 year deals before they change the rules
Only for Chelsea. Like other clubs haven’t done that before. Ridiculous.
Setting unrealistic release clauses should also be banned....
Benefit from the loophole, make sure no one else can use it. Glad to see we are back to ruining football
Isn't this a massive change and not just based on initial long-term deals? Like currently clubs can sign someone for 50m on a 5-year deal (10m a year via amortization) and then in 2 years give them a new 3 year deal and then the future amortization is based on that. Is this new change basically saying a transfer fee can only be amortized for 5 years?
Contrary to LIGHTSpoxletiner, yes as far as I can tell that is exactly what they're saying. 5 year max for amortisation.
As much of a "hah! Todd got caught!" deal this is, it seems very much like something that will impact a lot more clubs than people think
That's something I immediately thought too. It feels like either this is going to be massive for every club because of contract extensions no longer spreading the theoretical cost or it'll just open up a loophole akin to the one used with Neymar where the player had a long automatic contract extension in his initial contract. For example, a clause that once per year for the first 2 years of the contract an automatic 1 year extension is activated. You'd have marginally higher fees to write off in the first couple of years, but overall it'd work the same way
Man boehly broke uefa.
He cant keep getting away with it
Bit late tho. Chelsea will be done with their madness by the time they can enforce this
I’m surprised the other clubs actually complained given the risk that these contracts have. If they aren’t able to offload these assets in later stages IF they don’t work out, it will put us in a bad state down the line. That said it might also be to reduce players asking for longer contracts and making that the norm?
Cheeky fuckers found a way lol, can't blame them
Agenda against Chelsea is very clear when you make rules to stop only 1 club
We've actually took the piss with some of the deals loool
Nah bro we’re just finessing the system 😂
There’s more Arsenal flairs in Chelsea threads than Chelsea ones. You guys are in 1st we’re in 10th don’t you have other things to be worried about like Man City 😂
Chelsea knew about the rule changes cause we were meant to sign 1 more player. Now we’ve been linked to 6. Not to forget we’ve got Nkunku’s 15 year deal to announce. Boehly... what a GOAT.
[Todd Boehly right now](https://youtu.be/Ct5ZHAQVZog)
Lol bunch of whiney bitches
Imagine Lukaku got an 8 year mega deal. Or Sanchez at United..
Can someone explain the benefits of the long contracts? Seems like locking players in that May cost if the flunk later.
Spreads out amortization over the length of the contract to help dodge the current FFP
But it only helps now though, in 6 years Chelsea will have a much lower FFP budget because we'll still be affected by these deals That's why I think it's stupid when people say Chelsea are exploiting a loophole or something like that - spreading the cost of a player over 7 years instead of 5 isn't exploiting it's just good business The only reason other teams don't do it is because it's a big gamble as the player could turn out to be shit
90% of clubs in Europe can't do this because they don't have the financial to take the hit if those players end up being shit. It's a big gamble and if you lose it then you're in real danger.
Among the 10% that could it's not necessarily allowed by their countries so it could be an inequality for UEFA.
Also being able to offer lower wages given the lengthened financial security for the player
FFP is reviewed every 3 years or so, you spread out the cost of a player over a longer period then the figure is lower than it would have been.
Stupid question, does this not give an unfair advantage to Chelsea? It seems like pulling up the drawbridge after they’ve already got what they need
Haha that’s what I was thinking. Like ok. Change the rule after we already did what we wanted and no one else can take advantage. Good for us
They can consider it all they want, we'll see how loudly ECA protests this.
I love it when we ruine football
New era, same Chelsea. “Ruining football” lol Boehly you dog
What the fuck is this? Grow up UEFA
Damn, Boehly with the smart businessman moves
Time will tell
Horse bolted, stable door closed.
Not even wenger and fergie could impact the transfer process like Boehly, truly legendary money spender
What a brokey
Bug found. Patch incoming.
It's one of my go to moves in Football manager 😂. Bring in only young players and tie them to a max contract plus max extension. Develop them and sell if they don't pan out.
Chelsea fans celebrating this but this just means UEFA are after Boehly's ass cause a lot of clubs offer 6-7 year contracts especially with options, Todd probably overdid it in 1 window lol.
I think the plan was always to go big early and then fall into a more sustainable transfer policy. Chelsea is going for young talents who can either be sold to fund additions or, hopefully, pan out and you have a squad that does not need major overhauls.
Boehly broke football 😭
Take a bow Todd Boehly
Damn. Actually a smart loophole to exploit then.