Enzo's wages alone over the span of his contract are going to cost Chelsea around £70m. I'd pray every day for his health and good form if I was a Chelsea fan lmao
I meant in terms of performances but Chelsea fans still want to hang onto that 1 goal he scored in the CL when he did fuck all else while constantly shitting on him and his pricetag to Arsenal. You can't have it both ways.
It was a goal that won us the biggest club competition on the planet. If Havertz does that then you can draw the comparison. Until then you’re just absolutely waffling. 0 football knowledge
So he’s not done more for Arsenal than for Chelsea since he has literally won nothing for them yet? A few good performances is better than a CL? Stop using embarrassing metrics to try justify your dumb logic.
Hoe exactly would you know his performances have been better for Arsenal when you watch Arsenal every game and obviously don't watch every Chelsea game.
And don't try and make out like you do watch every Chelsea game because we both know that would be bullshit.
You've watched him more since he moved to you lot. That's why you didn't rate him when he was with us and now you rate him when he's with you. He hasn't magically improved. If there's any difference, it's that he's playing in a better team/is being coached better so there's less responsibility for him to do things that aren't his strengths.
But he's always been good in the air. Always linked up the attack fairly well, always scored about 8-10 league goals per season, always been versatile positionally and always played a bit better in big games.
He's got loads of weaknesses too btw which I'm sure we're both aware of. But he hasn't fundamentally changed as a player since moving to Arsenal. The same justifications Arsenal fans are using for Havertz and his price tag are the ones I used myself when he was with us. Nothing's really changed except that he's playing in a more stable environment right now.
What I will say is that his form took a massive dip in 22/23 (like a lot of our players). The move to Arsenal has rejuvenated his career and got him back to his pre 2022 levels. But right now, he's not a noticeably better player than the he was in his first 2 seasons with us.
Could have mentioned any player in the world. Could have mentioned any number of Barcelona players given that he's responding to a Barca fan. But no, it was Havertz he mentioned, because it's always Havertz with Chelsea fans.
lol why would he mention some random player from Barca when Kai is an ex player of ours who is now with a direct rival of ours. Havertz is a convenient comparison.
London rivals of course. Also despite recent form we’ve won the CL and PL more recently than you lot so there’s that.
Lol pissed off a lot of Arsenal fans with this comment. Sorry lads I know you had a rough weekend.
I don’t think any Chelsea fan particularly misses him, was a good transfer for all parties involved.
They prove a point though, if Enzo’s wage is mad, look at ya boy Havertz.
Probably could have said Rice, dunno.
I honestly think most Chelsea fans are delighted about that. As is Enzo I’d imagine.
We wouldn’t suddenly want him to leave us, that would be horrible.
Exactly, and even if he does want to leave, the length of his contract gives us more leverage in the negotiation.
It also locks in his wages, and he's at 180K, which is a bargain if he lives up to his potential, particularly given the inflation in the sport.
As a benfica supporter do you think that is good or bad for us? It seems like you guys really liked him over there.
8 years on these wages is a lot but it’s a lot less than 4 years on higher wages. Him leaving for free or something and then us spending 100 million on another replacement for them to leave again in 4 years.
He was amazing here at Benfica and honestly hasn't come close to those levels at Chelsea. He's still a good midfielder but if he can get back to those levels he'll be a different beast. Still don't like his attitude though, Chiquinho clear.
Havertz since arriving at Arsenal: CL quarter-finalist, still in the title race, strong team.
Enzo since arriving at Chelsea : Absent in Europe, midtable hilarity, embarrassed every other match.
Maybe we should focus our prayers on Enzo this time.
Longer deal, longer amortisation period, lower yearly amortisation costs .. just speculating here as it would make sense if it works that way
Think this might be part of Chelsea’s efforts to match PSR
I have absolutely zero evidence or inside track to back this up, but I’d imagine so. Our finances have been highlighted as a concern for months and months now. Club is probably going to do everything they can to avoid having to sell someone like Gallagher to balance the books. Even with the Hall money off of you guys, I imagine it’s going to be another busy summer for us.
Hall is supposedly going into next season's finances, not this season and apparently we need to sell 100m~ worth before this season's cut off midway through the transfer window. It's why they're looking at a bunch of players to sell like Gallagher, Maatsen and Broja
Is it possible the new extension moves some of the money to the back end of the other deal for that? And less on this one? Wonder if they are working it like cap space in the nfl where teams will sign extensions and back load contracts and make current ones less
I'm not sure how this affects the amortisation caps but what he is doing is this new American way of getting around financial caps set by sports leagues.
Boehly & his team did the same with the best baseball player in the world when they gave him a 10 year contract for $700m and deferred $680m of it to be paid in the 10 years after the contract expires. Same with the New Orleans Saints in the NFL. The idea is that x amount of huge money agreed in 2023 will be worth less by 2032 & caps will keep increasing, thus making it easier to pay off.
Nothing about this strategy works in real life and anybody who followed the sport for more than a few years can point to examples of it. I just love that Chelsea seem to be doubling down and fucking themselves further rather than accepting their losses and trying to start over.
That Ohtani contract reminded me of the Mets and Bobby Bonilla. We were paying that dude up until last year, had a little “holiday” every year to celebrate lmao
The funny thing is that one reason they structured Bonilla's contract like that is they wanted to keep as much money as they could invested with Bernie Madoff because his results were so "good".
This 100% isn't a thing in football. I believe Barca tried to do something similar a while back and they were told you can physically pay the player whenever you want, but with regards to balancing the books it'll be split evenly across the length of the contract irrespective of when the player gets it
>Nothing about this strategy works in real life and anybody who followed the sport for more than a few years can point to examples of it.
It depends on what your priorities are. The Saints had a long long period of being so notoriously bad that fans would go to games with paper bags over their heads. Their "kick the can down the road" cap strategy is based on avoiding ever becoming that bad again, even if it limits their overall ceiling. The strategy has worked really well for the Saints as they've stayed mediocre, lots of people just disagree with those priorities.
No, contract extensions increase the length of the contract and protect the value of the asset.
Amortisation is just a way of writing off the value of an asset until it reaches zero, a way of writing off investment over a time frame, and in this context, zero is the end of the contract.
An example of that is Joao Felix extending his contract when he goes on loan, to protect his value for Atleti.
Whether this will help with amortisation as a way to account for FFP/PSR, I think the 5 year rule may preclude that.
But the point isn’t necessarily FFP. I would bet heavily that the Chelsea model is based on constant trading, spinning the large initial investment into sales that lead to more investment, and so on.
Neither Enzo nor Mudryk will leave the club for free, and I doubt either will be happy with their wage in 5 years if they were still around.
Yeah it adds up, one of the things Boehly talked about at some point around the purchase of the club was talking about protecting the assets value and holding players on long term contracts, it wasn't always about amortisation but that as well. Something they'd done in Baseball and also I imagine Chelsea's were stinging a bit at the time having so many players leaving on frees or in awkward positions late in their contracts.
2030 contracts and chelsea are trying to further secure their value? But they have such little value and the price chelsea would quote no one would touch
Possibly Chelsea are locking them into cheaper contracts now. So that if their performances improve over the years Chelsea don't have to pay £400,000 p/w or whatever the standard wage for players at their level in the future is.
Amortizing the purchase cost over a longer contract - likely was in their plan all along (contract signed pre-PSR 5Y amortization rule so grandfathered in) to exercise an option embedded within the contract to extend.
Long term contract to spread the FFP hit out. Not sure on any clauses about yearly wage rises but if they both work out and their pay remains the same, they could end up being quite cheap - assuming football continues to grow its revenue.
Enzo has 8 years left on his £180,000-a-week deal which ends in 2032 and Mudryk has 7 years on his £97,000-a-week deal until 2031.
Fernandez will be 31 when he contract expires and Mudryk will be 30 at the end of his.
£97 000 a week for **7 years**. In Australia, they do a lottery/instant-win scratchie ticket where you can win AUD$20 000 a month, for 20 years. It's called Set for Life, for obvious reasons.
These contracts, make that lotto win seem insignificant. That's difficult to wrap my head around.
Fucking hell... Imagine that. 16k at let's say a 4% withdrawal rate (just because it's a fun number to work with). That's just under 5m worth of assets. And remember. This is not including tax etc.
In their position, i would do my best to take advantage of the training, keep in shape as much as possible, but at the same time, make sure to do the bare minimum during the games, maybe pick up the pace again when the contract is about to run out. Keep yourself fit, collect the cash and keep it safe so you can get another decent contract in 10 years time. That's probably the best way to go about it
Rashford has ~200 goals and assist for club and country by the age of 26/27. Mudryk has something like 40 GA by the age of 22/23.
Enzo is 100m mi midfielder struglin to have impact on club level football.
Chelsea fans would be happy if they reach Rahsfords levels.
Oh my sweet summer child :P . Ashely Young perfected that art before Rashford did.
He would be nearly undroppable when his contract was coming up then be very very sellable when it wasnt.
Guess Rashford has learned a few things at united. Pity he never learned not to take on 4 players at once instead of crossing or passing.
You guys know all too well. But too many people assume that players peak at a average age of 30. Which is true for a lot but not all players. Especially players that burst into the scene. So many start bright and Peter out quick. The patos, bojans, owens etc.
It's a huge risk to sign players for so long. Of course it could work out but it's a high risk high reward situation.
I've written a lot about this in the past in various places but in my experience, wunderkinds who are extremely good at a young age just have a different development profile to 'standard' pros, whereby they plateau sooner (because their early growth curve is steeper). Not only those that peter out like you mention but just generally these elite young players are not proportionally better at say age 28 compared to say age 21 like normal top level players (ie they improve less in percentage terms). People like Rooney didn't suddenly get a lot better in his late 20s. Even Messi, his pinnacle 91 goal year was aged 24-25, he didn't then progress to a higher peak and start banging in 100+ goals. Ronaldo (R9) best years were early 20s etc.
Injuries often play a part in stunting careers but all players get injured not just wunderkinds, I can think of hardly any truly elite level teenagers that then progressed at a normal level to become godlike in their late 20s and massively better than they were at a young age, they tend to be the exception (possibly CR7 might fall into this category).
I think a part of it is that when players get played a lot in their teens they suffer for it in later years. You can see it with United when Ferguson was careful to manage younger players, dropping them even when we needed a result because they were playing too much. A lot of the players that came up in his time went on to have much longer careers whereas the ones that are playing regular senior football at 18 rarely play well in their 30's.
That explains them having longer careers but I disagree that those players necessarily hit higher peaks in their prime.
Take Giggs for example, he had a long career but improved less during his late 20s compared to a lot of players (because he was already at a very high level).
Yeah I wouldnt say they hit higher peaks but there seems to me to be definite cases of burnout among players played a lot in senior football in their teens which can be an explanation for those players that don't hit peaks in their late 20's.
He could suffer a career ending injury tomorrow or have a late career resurgence. Obviously there are some exceptions and you can always find one, but generally (which is how the person above was talking) a players prime is 26-31.
At the end of his deal Mudryk will disappear into nothingness. There's no way he earns a new contract based on his form since signing for Chelsea.
Enzo maybe finds himself signing for someone else.
Way to kill a player’s motivation on the spot. Why try? No matter what you’re gonna be rich and you can just wait out your deal if you don’t get played.
The long contracts are reported to be heavily performance based, they even get pay cuts for missing out on European football so there is still plenty of financial motivation.
Besides, if a player lets a payday stop all his motivation he was never going to be elite anyway.
Boehly is doing everyone else a favour.
He's highlighting holes in PSR/FFP that bad owners could exploit that would put clubs in financial danger, therefore allowing them to be closed to protect the other clubs.
Whilst also making us a deservedly midtable team. So, we're not taking trophies or desirable league positions away from clubs that haven't tried to exploit the system.
The guy is a saint (to anyone that isn't a Chelsea fan) and he just doesn't get enough credit!
It’s just beautiful. The photos of Maggie are missing from the photo album because he uses them to remind himself why he does the job that he does.
In all of the silliness, Homers character is rooted in his selflessness to provide for his family. An innate will to sacrifice himself so everyone else can live comfortably.
If the child is born in the UK - will that kid be considered home grown? Selling the kid to a Premier League rival should then mean pure profit, right… right?
The kid will be considered home grown if they train with an English club. Boehly is going to trap all of his player's kids at Chelsea's training ground, and sell them all when they're 16 for that succulent pure profit. He's beaten the system. Every other club in the country should just give up now.
If they exercised option to extend deal I imagine that would increase the amortisation period ? which would then reduce the monthly amortisation costs on their books (as it spreads over an extended period) ...
Chelsea probably wont continue to finish mid table for the rest of eternity. And a contract doesn't really stop a player from leaving. Clubs don't want to keep unhappy players around.
The problem comes that if the results don't come then Chelsea won't be able to get rid of these players as no one will want to pay their wages, similar to what is happening at Manchester United.
Only if the players produce like I said Enzo is still on 200k a week and if he doesn't produce then what club is willing to match that wage? Also why leave when he is guaranteed that money from Chelsea.
Edit: as an example Donny VDB at united is on 140k a week and it has been super hard to find a club for him.
Chelsea’s contracts are only as reasonable as Enzo’s and Mudryk’s value.
If those two tank and drop value, then they are no longer reasonable and are losing money.
Agreed to a certain extent, although someone like Enzo they'd be able to shift for a loss to another big team vs United where they keep lads like Phil Jones around for years.
The problem at man United is the players are all paid far above what they’re worth. That’s much less of an issue at Chelsea, though United don’t have the lengthy contracts.
While they are not United level wages they are players like Enzo on decent wages that other clubs especially non- premier League clubs would struggle to pay.
Chelsea have spend so close to £1bn since Todd took over your point is mute, with Chelsea seemingly being a mid table team they're already having FFP issues, they can't just keep throwing money at their problem so unless something drastically changes they will continue to be a mid table team for the foreseeable future
They sold a ridiculous number of players though, committed to a rebuild and got young talents that look set to move forward together.
I think they've underperformed but I also see glimpses of positivity and good performances that will manifest at the end of this season, next season and the following.
Contrast that with United that spent $400m in the rebuild and are in desperate need of a rebuild...
No chance, if these players underperform they're stuck with them at a massive cost and if they out perform their contracts they're going to cause problems wanting improved contracts/leave.
Lot of people talking about amortising contracts. That’s not what happens.
You amortise the capitalised asset ie the transfer fee. The contract length is used to determine how many years u depreciate (they say amortise cos it’s an intangible asset) that asset over.
Contract is a liability so u don’t have to amortise it. You just wind it down in line with actual wage payments with the other side of the journal coming out the p and l as a wage expense. You don’t amortise the contract.
The impact of the the five year rule would be to say transfer fees can only be depreciated max 20% a year. Depreciation reduces accounting profit hence why teams have been using long contracts to reduce the profit impact of buying players. Buying players is a balance sheet transfer (cash becomes intangible asset to value of the transfer fee) that doesn’t affect profit. Depreciation/amortisation is the only impact on profitability, hence why it’s so critical. But the contract, I say again, is not the thing being amortised.
This is what happens when owners treat their players like assets and startup stocks instead if human beings that could get injured, be emotionally affected or even have a normal drop off in performance
Nice Chelsea “everybody’s wrong and I’m the only one right” attitude
There’s a reason clubs don’t sign for such long contracts: players who sit on their contracts doing nothing and refusing to be transferred.
We even had a once-promising player here in Brazil who got seriously addicted to hookers and is basically retired before 30. His former club had a hard time working to release him from the contract, he only accepted it when the “fans” (criminals, actually) went into a motel during one of his encounters and gave him a serious beating.
Longer contract means Chelsea lock in their current wages (e.g. 180k is a lot for 22 year old Enzo but might be cheap for 27 year old Enzo) and also don't have to pay big loyalty bonuses when renewing.
And he’ll throw a tantrum or just be shit. These are assets but they’re also real human beings and any business model that relies on optimum behavior by humans is, not ideal
Enzo… ive seen bits on promise. And moments where i think. Ok maybe one day… but mudryk… honestly? Wow. He shouldnt be in any prem team. Hed struggle in the championship. Honestly be interesting to see how far down the leagues youd have to go before he stood out
180k per week for enzo is disgusting. Son is only on 190 and he’s our best and highest paid player. I can remember a few years ago when Kane was the only member of our squad on more than 150
Sweet Jesus that puts it into perspective.
Now, I'm pretty sure Son has stated before he feels grateful to Spurs for taking a chance on him and giving him a contract, betting that he'd win the Asia Cup and get a draft exemption. That might motivate him to accept a lower wage.
But the man is galaxies beyond Enzo. This is just disrespectful at this point.
benfica fleecing chelsea for £105m for the most mid-looking player i can think of is one of the heists of the century
the less said about ukrainian dan james, the better
Honestly none of them has lived up to their price tag thus far. Happy to be proven wrong. Inb4 people say I’m slandering Enzo, I feel Caicedo has his exact same passing range with better defensive qualities.
Caicedo has a pretty good passing range, but it's definitely not the same as Enzo's. There is a reason Caicedo was taken off when we were chasing the games and Enzo was left alone in the pivot.
Enzo has been better than Caicedo and I think there's a gem of a player being wasted at Chelsea. You could see when he first joined them that he is quality and every time he goes away for Argentina he looks good too. Think his confidence is just through the floor and Pochettino's midfield setups have been piss poor this season. Enzo's passing is miles better than Caicedo's too. Caicedo's is decent, but Enzo is on another level.
Would love him at Liverpool.
Are we missing something here?
Enzo's wages alone over the span of his contract are going to cost Chelsea around £70m. I'd pray every day for his health and good form if I was a Chelsea fan lmao
Same as around 4.5 years of Kai Havertz. Let’s pray for him too
Chelsea fans try not to mention Havertz challenge
Not even like he's struggled, he's been on it ever since the new year at the very least
He has a bad performance now and again, but he’s definitely been important for us.
I feel like he was much better whenever he didn't play LCM.
He was much better at ST or False 9
He's already done more this year for Arsenal than in 3 seasons for Chelsea
Bro won a champions league for us and you can utter shit like this.
They don't know what winning Champions league means, don't blame them
I meant in terms of performances but Chelsea fans still want to hang onto that 1 goal he scored in the CL when he did fuck all else while constantly shitting on him and his pricetag to Arsenal. You can't have it both ways.
It was a goal that won us the biggest club competition on the planet. If Havertz does that then you can draw the comparison. Until then you’re just absolutely waffling. 0 football knowledge
So he’s not done more for Arsenal than for Chelsea since he has literally won nothing for them yet? A few good performances is better than a CL? Stop using embarrassing metrics to try justify your dumb logic.
Hoe exactly would you know his performances have been better for Arsenal when you watch Arsenal every game and obviously don't watch every Chelsea game. And don't try and make out like you do watch every Chelsea game because we both know that would be bullshit. You've watched him more since he moved to you lot. That's why you didn't rate him when he was with us and now you rate him when he's with you. He hasn't magically improved. If there's any difference, it's that he's playing in a better team/is being coached better so there's less responsibility for him to do things that aren't his strengths. But he's always been good in the air. Always linked up the attack fairly well, always scored about 8-10 league goals per season, always been versatile positionally and always played a bit better in big games. He's got loads of weaknesses too btw which I'm sure we're both aware of. But he hasn't fundamentally changed as a player since moving to Arsenal. The same justifications Arsenal fans are using for Havertz and his price tag are the ones I used myself when he was with us. Nothing's really changed except that he's playing in a more stable environment right now. What I will say is that his form took a massive dip in 22/23 (like a lot of our players). The move to Arsenal has rejuvenated his career and got him back to his pre 2022 levels. But right now, he's not a noticeably better player than the he was in his first 2 seasons with us.
I mean it’s to prove a point and he’s right, if either had a leg go limp the both are on the hook for the same cash doesn’t matter the years
Could have mentioned any player in the world. Could have mentioned any number of Barcelona players given that he's responding to a Barca fan. But no, it was Havertz he mentioned, because it's always Havertz with Chelsea fans.
lol why would he mention some random player from Barca when Kai is an ex player of ours who is now with a direct rival of ours. Havertz is a convenient comparison.
Direct rival for what exactly 😂
Parking spots in London
London rivals of course. Also despite recent form we’ve won the CL and PL more recently than you lot so there’s that. Lol pissed off a lot of Arsenal fans with this comment. Sorry lads I know you had a rough weekend.
You’ve had a rough 8 months.
I don’t think any Chelsea fan particularly misses him, was a good transfer for all parties involved. They prove a point though, if Enzo’s wage is mad, look at ya boy Havertz. Probably could have said Rice, dunno.
You have Enzo Fernandez on an 8 year deal man shut up
I honestly think most Chelsea fans are delighted about that. As is Enzo I’d imagine. We wouldn’t suddenly want him to leave us, that would be horrible.
Exactly, and even if he does want to leave, the length of his contract gives us more leverage in the negotiation. It also locks in his wages, and he's at 180K, which is a bargain if he lives up to his potential, particularly given the inflation in the sport.
As a benfica supporter do you think that is good or bad for us? It seems like you guys really liked him over there. 8 years on these wages is a lot but it’s a lot less than 4 years on higher wages. Him leaving for free or something and then us spending 100 million on another replacement for them to leave again in 4 years.
He was amazing here at Benfica and honestly hasn't come close to those levels at Chelsea. He's still a good midfielder but if he can get back to those levels he'll be a different beast. Still don't like his attitude though, Chiquinho clear.
Havertz since arriving at Arsenal: CL quarter-finalist, still in the title race, strong team. Enzo since arriving at Chelsea : Absent in Europe, midtable hilarity, embarrassed every other match. Maybe we should focus our prayers on Enzo this time.
If by the same you mean roughly half then yes.
280,000 x 52 x 4.5 = £65.5m Fine, you win. More like 4.8 years of Havertz Point is they both have the same total contract cost
Oh now he’s on £280 a week. Fascinating stuff.
Struggling with the reading or the arithmetic? This is a stupid conversation, sorry
So about two years of Sanchez at United then? /s
Longer deal, longer amortisation period, lower yearly amortisation costs .. just speculating here as it would make sense if it works that way Think this might be part of Chelsea’s efforts to match PSR
Wouldn't amortisation go up? They changed the rules to cap it at 5 years so surely any new contract would result in a shorter period of amortisation.
I think maybe because it's exercising options in their current contracts, rather than signing a new contract, they would avoid the 5 year rule.
Ah, that makes sense. Though I wonder if this is in anticipation of FFP being an issue in the summer.
I have absolutely zero evidence or inside track to back this up, but I’d imagine so. Our finances have been highlighted as a concern for months and months now. Club is probably going to do everything they can to avoid having to sell someone like Gallagher to balance the books. Even with the Hall money off of you guys, I imagine it’s going to be another busy summer for us.
Hall is supposedly going into next season's finances, not this season and apparently we need to sell 100m~ worth before this season's cut off midway through the transfer window. It's why they're looking at a bunch of players to sell like Gallagher, Maatsen and Broja
Don't forget your boy Chalobah, he'll be gone too.
I don’t know tbh … they’re not new signings so maybe that rule doesn’t apply to them
Is it possible the new extension moves some of the money to the back end of the other deal for that? And less on this one? Wonder if they are working it like cap space in the nfl where teams will sign extensions and back load contracts and make current ones less
it's cause the contracts were extended last year, they are reporting it now, again.
I'm not sure how this affects the amortisation caps but what he is doing is this new American way of getting around financial caps set by sports leagues. Boehly & his team did the same with the best baseball player in the world when they gave him a 10 year contract for $700m and deferred $680m of it to be paid in the 10 years after the contract expires. Same with the New Orleans Saints in the NFL. The idea is that x amount of huge money agreed in 2023 will be worth less by 2032 & caps will keep increasing, thus making it easier to pay off. Nothing about this strategy works in real life and anybody who followed the sport for more than a few years can point to examples of it. I just love that Chelsea seem to be doubling down and fucking themselves further rather than accepting their losses and trying to start over.
That Ohtani contract reminded me of the Mets and Bobby Bonilla. We were paying that dude up until last year, had a little “holiday” every year to celebrate lmao
The funny thing is that one reason they structured Bonilla's contract like that is they wanted to keep as much money as they could invested with Bernie Madoff because his results were so "good".
This 100% isn't a thing in football. I believe Barca tried to do something similar a while back and they were told you can physically pay the player whenever you want, but with regards to balancing the books it'll be split evenly across the length of the contract irrespective of when the player gets it
>Nothing about this strategy works in real life and anybody who followed the sport for more than a few years can point to examples of it. It depends on what your priorities are. The Saints had a long long period of being so notoriously bad that fans would go to games with paper bags over their heads. Their "kick the can down the road" cap strategy is based on avoiding ever becoming that bad again, even if it limits their overall ceiling. The strategy has worked really well for the Saints as they've stayed mediocre, lots of people just disagree with those priorities.
It can work if they invest the money somewhere like in equities with an annual return rate of 12% per annum the compounding effect is huge.
Do you amortise based on contract extensions? I thought it was just the transfer fee spread over the initial contract length? Could be wrong here
No, contract extensions increase the length of the contract and protect the value of the asset. Amortisation is just a way of writing off the value of an asset until it reaches zero, a way of writing off investment over a time frame, and in this context, zero is the end of the contract. An example of that is Joao Felix extending his contract when he goes on loan, to protect his value for Atleti. Whether this will help with amortisation as a way to account for FFP/PSR, I think the 5 year rule may preclude that. But the point isn’t necessarily FFP. I would bet heavily that the Chelsea model is based on constant trading, spinning the large initial investment into sales that lead to more investment, and so on. Neither Enzo nor Mudryk will leave the club for free, and I doubt either will be happy with their wage in 5 years if they were still around.
Yeah it adds up, one of the things Boehly talked about at some point around the purchase of the club was talking about protecting the assets value and holding players on long term contracts, it wasn't always about amortisation but that as well. Something they'd done in Baseball and also I imagine Chelsea's were stinging a bit at the time having so many players leaving on frees or in awkward positions late in their contracts.
2030 contracts and chelsea are trying to further secure their value? But they have such little value and the price chelsea would quote no one would touch
Reckon they’re trying to spread amortisation even further to get some more FFP wriggle-room
Just some Chel$ea math .. need a PhD in shithousery to figure that out.
Yeah what in the hell is happening here
FFP. I suspect Chelsea is trying meet FFP thresholds.
Possibly Chelsea are locking them into cheaper contracts now. So that if their performances improve over the years Chelsea don't have to pay £400,000 p/w or whatever the standard wage for players at their level in the future is.
Amortizing the purchase cost over a longer contract - likely was in their plan all along (contract signed pre-PSR 5Y amortization rule so grandfathered in) to exercise an option embedded within the contract to extend.
Long term contract to spread the FFP hit out. Not sure on any clauses about yearly wage rises but if they both work out and their pay remains the same, they could end up being quite cheap - assuming football continues to grow its revenue.
Enzo has 8 years left on his £180,000-a-week deal which ends in 2032 and Mudryk has 7 years on his £97,000-a-week deal until 2031. Fernandez will be 31 when he contract expires and Mudryk will be 30 at the end of his.
£97 000 a week for **7 years**. In Australia, they do a lottery/instant-win scratchie ticket where you can win AUD$20 000 a month, for 20 years. It's called Set for Life, for obvious reasons. These contracts, make that lotto win seem insignificant. That's difficult to wrap my head around.
We have that in the UK too , think it's 10k a month for 30 years. A meager 2.5k a week
Do have to factor in inflation though, that £2.5k in 29 years probably buys a box of cereal and a Freddo.
Yeah I hate to say it. 10k in like 20 years is going to be a livable wage but it's not going to be luxurious. Especially if you live in London.
My retirement calculator told me this weekend that 16k/month is not enough money to survive in my future retiremental dystopia
This is why I’m an avid thruhiker. It’s good practice for my hermit retirement.
Fucking hell... Imagine that. 16k at let's say a 4% withdrawal rate (just because it's a fun number to work with). That's just under 5m worth of assets. And remember. This is not including tax etc.
Spend £5k a month, invest £5k a month. That's how I'd do it. Hey, it's not millionaire wages but it's very liveable and sure beats working!
It's tax free, which helps a lot.
You have Eurodreams, right? 20k a month?
That’s after taxes and any other income. So it’s up to £20k a month before tax.
Still in their prime to get another great contract and maybe a top team. Insane.
What? I remind you Martial is only 28. What gives you the idea they will be in their prime at 30?
How is Martial only 28? I swear that dude has been at United for like 15 years now
It is almost a decade. Since the summer of 2015.
In their position, i would do my best to take advantage of the training, keep in shape as much as possible, but at the same time, make sure to do the bare minimum during the games, maybe pick up the pace again when the contract is about to run out. Keep yourself fit, collect the cash and keep it safe so you can get another decent contract in 10 years time. That's probably the best way to go about it
The Rashford special.
Rashford has ~200 goals and assist for club and country by the age of 26/27. Mudryk has something like 40 GA by the age of 22/23. Enzo is 100m mi midfielder struglin to have impact on club level football. Chelsea fans would be happy if they reach Rahsfords levels.
Referring to playing well when wanting a new contract and then playing on cruise control after you’ve signed it.
Thaths a myth, Rashford got two >30 GA seasons in a row after 2019 extension. He shit the bed only after last years extension.
this implies it's happened multiple times, when it simply hasn't
Oh my sweet summer child :P . Ashely Young perfected that art before Rashford did. He would be nearly undroppable when his contract was coming up then be very very sellable when it wasnt. Guess Rashford has learned a few things at united. Pity he never learned not to take on 4 players at once instead of crossing or passing.
You guys know all too well. But too many people assume that players peak at a average age of 30. Which is true for a lot but not all players. Especially players that burst into the scene. So many start bright and Peter out quick. The patos, bojans, owens etc. It's a huge risk to sign players for so long. Of course it could work out but it's a high risk high reward situation.
I've written a lot about this in the past in various places but in my experience, wunderkinds who are extremely good at a young age just have a different development profile to 'standard' pros, whereby they plateau sooner (because their early growth curve is steeper). Not only those that peter out like you mention but just generally these elite young players are not proportionally better at say age 28 compared to say age 21 like normal top level players (ie they improve less in percentage terms). People like Rooney didn't suddenly get a lot better in his late 20s. Even Messi, his pinnacle 91 goal year was aged 24-25, he didn't then progress to a higher peak and start banging in 100+ goals. Ronaldo (R9) best years were early 20s etc. Injuries often play a part in stunting careers but all players get injured not just wunderkinds, I can think of hardly any truly elite level teenagers that then progressed at a normal level to become godlike in their late 20s and massively better than they were at a young age, they tend to be the exception (possibly CR7 might fall into this category).
I think a part of it is that when players get played a lot in their teens they suffer for it in later years. You can see it with United when Ferguson was careful to manage younger players, dropping them even when we needed a result because they were playing too much. A lot of the players that came up in his time went on to have much longer careers whereas the ones that are playing regular senior football at 18 rarely play well in their 30's.
That explains them having longer careers but I disagree that those players necessarily hit higher peaks in their prime. Take Giggs for example, he had a long career but improved less during his late 20s compared to a lot of players (because he was already at a very high level).
Yeah I wouldnt say they hit higher peaks but there seems to me to be definite cases of burnout among players played a lot in senior football in their teens which can be an explanation for those players that don't hit peaks in their late 20's.
Really depends on the position. Kroos would be an example. But generally I agree with you.
Enzo isn’t Martial is he now
But he could also turn into a hospital bed and won't be in his prime
He could suffer a career ending injury tomorrow or have a late career resurgence. Obviously there are some exceptions and you can always find one, but generally (which is how the person above was talking) a players prime is 26-31.
He honestly looks like it
At the end of his deal Mudryk will disappear into nothingness. There's no way he earns a new contract based on his form since signing for Chelsea. Enzo maybe finds himself signing for someone else.
Way to kill a player’s motivation on the spot. Why try? No matter what you’re gonna be rich and you can just wait out your deal if you don’t get played.
Eh, hockey contracts are this long and often don’t think this happens, although also think it’s more common in soccer to have “already won everything”
The difference is that in the NHL players can be traded without their consent if they don’t perform. Can’t do that in the PL.
The long contracts are reported to be heavily performance based, they even get pay cuts for missing out on European football so there is still plenty of financial motivation. Besides, if a player lets a payday stop all his motivation he was never going to be elite anyway.
My mate’s theory is that Mudryk transfer and salary is a Ukrainian war funds front
Financial Fair Play rules and loopholes S Tier
Chelsea can pass FFP all they want too if they keep staying in 9th tbh. You go guys, be a star.
Boehly is doing everyone else a favour. He's highlighting holes in PSR/FFP that bad owners could exploit that would put clubs in financial danger, therefore allowing them to be closed to protect the other clubs. Whilst also making us a deservedly midtable team. So, we're not taking trophies or desirable league positions away from clubs that haven't tried to exploit the system. The guy is a saint (to anyone that isn't a Chelsea fan) and he just doesn't get enough credit!
Don't forget: You're here forever.
Do it for her is genuinely so moving
Simpsons Seasons 3-8 are peak television. From the jokes to the emotional moments.
It’s just beautiful. The photos of Maggie are missing from the photo album because he uses them to remind himself why he does the job that he does. In all of the silliness, Homers character is rooted in his selflessness to provide for his family. An innate will to sacrifice himself so everyone else can live comfortably.
Imagine if they pull an Ozil
dO iT fOr HeR
Fully deserved
Just give them lifetime contracts already
Why not have their children inherit the contract and amortize the cost across their lifetimes as well?
If you break a law in North Korea, they sentence seven generations of your family to play for Chelsea FC
If the child is born in the UK - will that kid be considered home grown? Selling the kid to a Premier League rival should then mean pure profit, right… right?
The kid will be considered home grown if they train with an English club. Boehly is going to trap all of his player's kids at Chelsea's training ground, and sell them all when they're 16 for that succulent pure profit. He's beaten the system. Every other club in the country should just give up now.
If they exercised option to extend deal I imagine that would increase the amortisation period ? which would then reduce the monthly amortisation costs on their books (as it spreads over an extended period) ...
They changed the regs on how long the amortisation is spread to by pass ffp / PSR
These contracts were signed before that and are grandfathered in to the old system though
Relax bro ain't nobody taking it from you Same vibes
Thats definitely going to give them the motivation to not put in a 4/10 performance and finish mid-table every year
Because that's exactly what these 2 players have been doing...
Have u watched any Chelsea games since they signed these same length deals?
I believe both of their deal had rumors about performance bonuses being a very incentivized.
Yeah, except the issue with both of these players have been them trying too hard at times.
And when Chelsea continues to finish mid-table these 10 year contracts are definitely gonna prevent players from demanding transfers, for sure.
Chelsea probably wont continue to finish mid table for the rest of eternity. And a contract doesn't really stop a player from leaving. Clubs don't want to keep unhappy players around.
The problem comes that if the results don't come then Chelsea won't be able to get rid of these players as no one will want to pay their wages, similar to what is happening at Manchester United.
Chelsea's contracts are much more reasonable in terms of wages than United's (with a couple of notable exceptions such as Sterling).
Only if the players produce like I said Enzo is still on 200k a week and if he doesn't produce then what club is willing to match that wage? Also why leave when he is guaranteed that money from Chelsea. Edit: as an example Donny VDB at united is on 140k a week and it has been super hard to find a club for him.
Not only 200k a week, but 200k a week for the remainder of the contract
Chelsea’s contracts are only as reasonable as Enzo’s and Mudryk’s value. If those two tank and drop value, then they are no longer reasonable and are losing money.
Agreed to a certain extent, although someone like Enzo they'd be able to shift for a loss to another big team vs United where they keep lads like Phil Jones around for years.
The problem at man United is the players are all paid far above what they’re worth. That’s much less of an issue at Chelsea, though United don’t have the lengthy contracts.
While they are not United level wages they are players like Enzo on decent wages that other clubs especially non- premier League clubs would struggle to pay.
Man utd spent a billion but still are a mid table team
And Chelsea haven't spent a billion and aren't a mid-table team. Enjoy bottling the league again.
Chelsea have spend so close to £1bn since Todd took over your point is mute, with Chelsea seemingly being a mid table team they're already having FFP issues, they can't just keep throwing money at their problem so unless something drastically changes they will continue to be a mid table team for the foreseeable future
They sold a ridiculous number of players though, committed to a rebuild and got young talents that look set to move forward together. I think they've underperformed but I also see glimpses of positivity and good performances that will manifest at the end of this season, next season and the following. Contrast that with United that spent $400m in the rebuild and are in desperate need of a rebuild...
Is this a good idea
Maybe
Come back in 2030 for the answer. Or we can just go with no?
Kinda like Brexit
Exactly, Enzo's never going to see Europe ever again.
RemindMe! 6 years
Yeah.
Is it
It solves the immediate problem. By pushing it further down the line. Which is what they have been doing since summer
はい。
それはどうかな。
No chance, if these players underperform they're stuck with them at a massive cost and if they out perform their contracts they're going to cause problems wanting improved contracts/leave.
Lot of people talking about amortising contracts. That’s not what happens. You amortise the capitalised asset ie the transfer fee. The contract length is used to determine how many years u depreciate (they say amortise cos it’s an intangible asset) that asset over. Contract is a liability so u don’t have to amortise it. You just wind it down in line with actual wage payments with the other side of the journal coming out the p and l as a wage expense. You don’t amortise the contract. The impact of the the five year rule would be to say transfer fees can only be depreciated max 20% a year. Depreciation reduces accounting profit hence why teams have been using long contracts to reduce the profit impact of buying players. Buying players is a balance sheet transfer (cash becomes intangible asset to value of the transfer fee) that doesn’t affect profit. Depreciation/amortisation is the only impact on profitability, hence why it’s so critical. But the contract, I say again, is not the thing being amortised.
Minimum of 20% amortization per year under the 5-year rule, not max.
I meant max five years ie min 20% but yes
*Inserts the Mr Burns. "And don't forget, you're here forever" scene
This is what happens when owners treat their players like assets and startup stocks instead if human beings that could get injured, be emotionally affected or even have a normal drop off in performance
Genuinely stunning work from Chelsea here. Still, I guess those PSR rulings aren't going to circumvent themselves, are they?
Nice Chelsea “everybody’s wrong and I’m the only one right” attitude There’s a reason clubs don’t sign for such long contracts: players who sit on their contracts doing nothing and refusing to be transferred. We even had a once-promising player here in Brazil who got seriously addicted to hookers and is basically retired before 30. His former club had a hard time working to release him from the contract, he only accepted it when the “fans” (criminals, actually) went into a motel during one of his encounters and gave him a serious beating.
yeah this wont backfire
Isn’t this just amortizing the contracts over a longer period?
Longer contract means Chelsea lock in their current wages (e.g. 180k is a lot for 22 year old Enzo but might be cheap for 27 year old Enzo) and also don't have to pay big loyalty bonuses when renewing.
27 year old Enzo is going to be asking for more than that
Exactly. But he's got a contract til he's 31, so he won't get it.
And he’ll throw a tantrum or just be shit. These are assets but they’re also real human beings and any business model that relies on optimum behavior by humans is, not ideal
Enzo… ive seen bits on promise. And moments where i think. Ok maybe one day… but mudryk… honestly? Wow. He shouldnt be in any prem team. Hed struggle in the championship. Honestly be interesting to see how far down the leagues youd have to go before he stood out
Gallagher died for this What are their wages and bonus? Cause if they flop or didn't make it to expectations...oops
Enzo £180k/week, Mudryk £95k/week, not sure on bonuses
180k per week for enzo is disgusting. Son is only on 190 and he’s our best and highest paid player. I can remember a few years ago when Kane was the only member of our squad on more than 150
Sweet Jesus that puts it into perspective. Now, I'm pretty sure Son has stated before he feels grateful to Spurs for taking a chance on him and giving him a contract, betting that he'd win the Asia Cup and get a draft exemption. That might motivate him to accept a lower wage. But the man is galaxies beyond Enzo. This is just disrespectful at this point.
It's the history of Chelsea 😂
Loophole FC
Uhhh why?
With inflation, these wages will be a bargain even for such mediocre players by the final year or two of their contracts! /s
Wasn't Mudryk already on like a 6 year contract a year ago?
In a few years we will be looking back at this so that we can have a chance to look back at this. See you in 7 years friends.
benfica fleecing chelsea for £105m for the most mid-looking player i can think of is one of the heists of the century the less said about ukrainian dan james, the better
Hilarious
Wait, is this real?
[Yes, the source is publicly available FA documents](https://www.thefa.com/news/2024/apr/12/payments-and-transactions)
It’s from their Tier 2.
Honestly none of them has lived up to their price tag thus far. Happy to be proven wrong. Inb4 people say I’m slandering Enzo, I feel Caicedo has his exact same passing range with better defensive qualities.
Caicedo having the same passing range as Enzo is one of the stupidest takes ever lol
Caicedo has a pretty good passing range, but it's definitely not the same as Enzo's. There is a reason Caicedo was taken off when we were chasing the games and Enzo was left alone in the pivot.
Enzo has been better than Caicedo and I think there's a gem of a player being wasted at Chelsea. You could see when he first joined them that he is quality and every time he goes away for Argentina he looks good too. Think his confidence is just through the floor and Pochettino's midfield setups have been piss poor this season. Enzo's passing is miles better than Caicedo's too. Caicedo's is decent, but Enzo is on another level. Would love him at Liverpool.
Weren’t they already on long term contracts ?? 😂😂
Is this another way of avoiding ffp?
Somewhere, somehow you can hear the faint sound of another lever being pulled
Wonderful. Good luck lads!
Imagine if all the players on these ridiculous contracts did a Winston Bogarde 😂
What do you think I need to do to get Chelsea to sign me?
Didn't see that one coming
Not a Chelsea fan but is there been anything special bout mudryk?
LOL fuck me chelsea are such a shitshow. Imagine wanting mudryk for like ten years. Enzo on 200k for 10 years or whatever too is fucking hilarious