Chelsea's contract strategy

Infestissumam said:
to be fair, they even keep the players they don't need for an insane amount of time. Batshuayi has been under contract there for six and a half years and he still has one and a half to go. Abdul-Rahman Baba has been there for seven and a half years. It's just two examples and they obviously have about 79 loans between the two of them, but they've always seemed to operate a bit differently than most other clubs.
Click to expand...

Batshuayi left on a permanent transfer to Fenerbahce last summer though?

But yeah either way it's not like the club actually wanted to keep these kind of players for 'an insane amount of time'. The reason we did was because there was nobody willing to buy them outright but there were always plenty of clubs willing to pay a small loan fee and cover their wages. When their contracts were starting to run down, Marina thought it would be smart to extend their deals before sending them out on loan, in hopes that they perform well enough to attract a permanent transfer with a decent enough transfer fee. With some players this kind of thinking worked out, with others not so much.

Without knowing specific figures for loan fees, parent club salary compensation percentages etc. it's difficult to say whether it was overall better to do these extensions or if we'd have been better off just releasing these players once their initial contracts expired.
 
Apokalips said:
Or there have to be guaranteed raises. The player would need a serious incentive to sign such a long term contract and it would have to be above and beyond the norm otherwise why would he sign.
Click to expand...

Yeah that might be it actually, raising as time goes on
 
Berbasbullet said:
The 80 million signing for 50k a week...give me a break.
Click to expand...

To counteract the risk of the longer contracts, the wages are now heavily incentivised. Players will be on smaller basic wages but if they keep fit, and play well, they earn their deserved wage. So if Mudryk gets 200k, flops and doesn't start - he'll most likely be earning a fair bit less - making a sale more realistic.
 
UsualSuspect said:
To counteract the risk of the longer contracts, the wages are now heavily incentivised. Players will be on smaller basic wages but if they keep fit, and play well, they earn their deserved wage. So if Mudryk gets 200k, flops and doesn't start - he'll most likely be earning a fair bit less - making a sale more realistic.
Click to expand...
You genuinely think his basic wage will be 50k a week without bonuses etc?
 
UsualSuspect said:
To counteract the risk of the longer contracts, the wages are now heavily incentivised. Players will be on smaller basic wages but if they keep fit, and play well, they earn their deserved wage. So if Mudryk gets 200k, flops and doesn't start - he'll most likely be earning a fair bit less - making a sale more realistic.
Click to expand...

Where's your proof of this? "Heavily" incentivised is very wrong as far as what I know, incentives are there for sure but he'll be on a pretty massive base salary given that Arsenal essentially refused to come anyway near.
 
Apokalips said:
Or there have to be guaranteed raises. The player would need a serious incentive to sign such a long term contract and it would have to be above and beyond the norm otherwise why would he sign.
Click to expand...
Guaranteed income over a longer period, it will be structure along the lines of say 50K a week to start, every season you play in half the games salary goes up 10K a week, win the PL salary goes up 30K, win the CL salary goes up 50K a week - the minimum basic is 50K per week for 8 years

Regular contract 4 years at 75 K a week, plays crap, next contract is only offered 20K a week

For the player which is the better one?
 
He is going the american route but doesn't understand the variability of football, how injuries/leagues/coaches can impact players... He gave a 22 year old with barely any experience at any level a contract until he is 30. It's not a good idea. It might work out, but most of the time it will be a very dumb idea.
 
Berbasbullet said:
You genuinely think his basic wage will be 50k a week without bonuses etc?
Click to expand...
Again it's what allegedly Arsenal were offering, Chelsea by some accounts are paying double that. Understand he was around 5-7k pw in Ukraine, so anything around 100k will be a massive bump for him
 
UsualSuspect said:
Similarly reported by many of the top Chelsea contacts at the time of the takeover:

https://www.footballtransfers.com/e...sform-contract-structure-here-are-their-plans
Click to expand...

Yeah, this just more or less confirms they are on massive base salaries with potential to be on obscene money if they meet all bonuses which unless you are Messi or Ronaldo will be nailed on impossible to do anyway. His agent ain't dumb, no agent is, he doesn't overly want the move... Chelsea have to pay up to persuade him, they did.
 
bosnian_red said:
He is going the american route but doesn't understand the variability of football, how injuries/leagues/coaches can impact players... He gave a 22 year old with barely any experience at any level a contract until he is 30. It's not a good idea. It might work out, but most of the time it will be a very dumb idea.
Click to expand...
The same variability applies in US sports as well,and their contracts are usually a hell of a lot bigger and guaranteed, so even if they move a player on he still gets the same deal, it's not a direct comparison but there are pros and cons of both
 
DWelbz19 said:
The likelihood of a €100m transfer not being on high (or at least moderately high) wages seems pretty low, no?
Click to expand...
He is on 80k per week with performance related bonuses
 
Red in STL said:
The same variability applies in US sports as well,and their contracts are usually a hell of a lot bigger and guaranteed, so even if they move a player on he still gets the same deal, it's not a direct comparison but there are pros and cons of both
Click to expand...
The variability within football that doesn't exist in US sports is adapting to living in a different country, evaluating performance against a different level of opponent, different league styles, etc.

In the US, they are all playing in the same league, against the same opponents. They have to adapt to the coach and team, sure, but the league and country is the same. Living situation not massively different. Moving from Ukrainian league to the premier league, so many unknowns about how good a player is.
 
bosnian_red said:
The variability within football that doesn't exist in US sports is adapting to living in a different country, evaluating performance against a different level of opponent, different league styles, etc.

In the US, they are all playing in the same league, against the same opponents. They have to adapt to the coach and team, sure, but the league and country is the same. Living situation not massively different. Moving from Ukrainian league to the premier league, so many unknowns about how good a player is.
Click to expand...
You do realize that a fairly large % of US sports stars aren't American

Rafael Devers of the Red Sox just signed a 11 year $331 million deal is from the Dominican Republic, he's one of many in baseball particularly from countries other than the US, FSG spending money there incidentally!

The NHL has loads of European players, the NFL is mostly American and so probably is the NBA but I don't follow those
 
Red in STL said:
You do realize that a fairly large % of US sports stars aren't American

Rafael Devers of the Red Sox just signed a 11 year $331 million deal is from the Dominican Republic, he's one of many in baseball particularly from countries other than the US, FSG spending money there incidentally!

The NHL has loads of European players, the NFL is mostly American and so probably is the NBA but I don't follow those
Click to expand...
I know that, but they don't spend massive money on them to bring them into the country. Once they prove themselves in the league is when they get paid big. Doesn't matter where they are from at that point, as they've already shown that they are elite players against the same opposition, in the same country. Adapting to league and adapting to the country and culture you live in are 2 massive points which you just never know how it'll go, same with evaluating how good a player is with respect to the league. Nobody is giving those guys enormous contracts unless they look like obvious all timers and there is a big battle to get them, and even then, won't be as big as a player that you know. It's like whoever goes for Rice. Of course he is going to get a big contract for many years. Everyone knows he has been successful in the prem and the living situation/league adaptation won't be an issue wherever he goes.
 
bosnian_red said:
I know that, but they don't spend massive money on them to bring them into the country. Once they prove themselves in the league is when they get paid big. Doesn't matter where they are from at that point, as they've already shown that they are elite players against the same opposition, in the same country. Adapting to league and adapting to the country and culture you live in are 2 massive points which you just never know how it'll go, same with evaluating how good a player is with respect to the league. Nobody is giving those guys enormous contracts unless they look like obvious all timers and there is a big battle to get them, and even then, won't be as big as a player that you know. It's like whoever goes for Rice. Of course he is going to get a big contract for many years. Everyone knows he has been successful in the prem and the living situation/league adaptation won't be an issue wherever he goes.
Click to expand...
Well the Red Sox just brought in a Japanese player on a 5 year $85 million contract and he's not the first or only one so they're not all young and cheap
 
Zen said:
Yeah, this just more or less confirms they are on massive base salaries with potential to be on obscene money if they meet all bonuses which unless you are Messi or Ronaldo will be nailed on impossible to do anyway. His agent ain't dumb, no agent is, he doesn't overly want the move... Chelsea have to pay up to persuade him, they did.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you get that confirmation from that article. Mudryk is on 97k/week but as the article suggests, he would be getting some nice appearance and performance bonuses.
 
Apparently Garnacho is about to sign his new United deal for 6,5 years + option for one more so it seems the contract strategy is catching on. :p
 
Rnd898 said:
Apparently Garnacho is about to sign his new United deal for 6,5 years + option for one more so it seems the contract strategy is catching on. :p
Click to expand...
We've often given 6 year deals to players. DDG and Martial's current deals are 6 years long inc. the option. Garnacho would be the longest, but still 2 years shorter than Mudryk's. Maguire is on a 7 year contract inc. the option.
 
So let's recap
  • Mychajlo Mudryk – 2031
  • Benoit Badiashile – 2029
  • Wesley Fofana – 2029
  • D.D Fofana - 2029
  • Marc Cucurella – 2028
  • Carney Chukwuemeka – 2028
  • Gabriel Slonina – 2028
Pro:
The amortisation rates for each individual player are reduced and consequently the room for manoeuvre is widened in view of the NEW Financial Fair Play, which will cap the ratio of squad costs (the sum of player and coach salaries, amortisation and agent fees) at a maximum of 70 per cent by the 2025/26 season.

Cons:
1. Binding oneself to such a long contract with a player poses the risk of not being able to 'get out' of a possible bad investment quickly and of having to continue paying the athlete's salary even if expectations of him are not met.
2. In the hypothesis of a transfer, it would be more complicated to register a capital gain. The player's value in the balance sheet will decrease more slowly over the years, and a higher bid than would have been sufficient in the case of a shorter contract might be needed to register a capital gain.


Let's see if it will be a winning strategy or not.
 
duffer said:
It was 70 million euros upfront and although I've genuinely not seen any wages mentioned, I'd be astonished if he's on less than £150K a week (he's got a shitty agent if he is).
Click to expand...
Berbasbullet said:
Yeah the 90 million signing has to be on at least 200k a week.
Click to expand...
Ekeke said:
Signing for 8.5 years I doubt he's on less than 250k, else he'll want a new contract in that time and signing for shorter makes a lot more sense
Click to expand...
The Athletic reporting he's on £97,000 a week, not sure about bonuses. https://theathletic.com/4093504/2023/01/18/inside-mudryk-deal-chelsea-arsenal/

I genuinely don't understand this from his side. If he lives up to the transfer fee (like he no doubt will back himself to) he's going to be making far less than players who aren't as good as him. He'd just end up disgruntled in 3-4 years looking for a renewal or transfer anyway.

The only way I can make sense of handing out such long contracts at low-ish wages is as a strategy by Chelsea to protect themselves from other clubs poaching their players, while the player himself gets verbal reassurances of a big pay rise in a few years if certain targets are met.
 
acolyte said:
The Athletic reporting he's on £97,000 a week, not sure about bonuses. https://theathletic.com/4093504/2023/01/18/inside-mudryk-deal-chelsea-arsenal/

I genuinely don't understand this from his side. If he lives up to the transfer fee (like he no doubt will back himself to) he's going to be making far less than players who aren't as good as him. He'd just end up disgruntled in 3-4 years looking for a renewal or transfer anyway.

The only way I can make sense of handing out such long contracts at low-ish wages is as a strategy by Chelsea to protect themselves from other clubs poaching their players, while the player himself gets verbal reassurances of a big pay rise in a few years if certain targets are met.
Click to expand...

These assurances can even be put into the contract itself and who's to say they haven't?

To me the £97K figure seems very low for a transfer of this magnitude, at least compared to most other deals worth similar fees, and if that's all he's getting for 8,5 years without renegotiation or transfer then his agent has done a pretty shitty job IMO.

The Athletic article does mention club wanting to keep costs down and having now tied Mudryk to a long term deal with a reasonable salary but I doubt the journos know all the ins and outs of the deal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some milestones that will raise the salary significantly if reached. That way it would still be reasonably low risk for the club (at least considering the contract length) to start with but would turn lucrative for the player if he comes good. Win-win for both.
 
Any loan from Clearlake is to Clearlake for tax purposes. They cannot put a loan on the team or use the team as collateral for ten years.
 
Markolan said:
So let's recap
  • Mychajlo Mudryk – 2031
  • Benoit Badiashile – 2029
  • Wesley Fofana – 2029
  • D.D Fofana - 2029
  • Marc Cucurella – 2028
  • Carney Chukwuemeka – 2028
  • Gabriel Slonina – 2028
Pro:
The amortisation rates for each individual player are reduced and consequently the room for manoeuvre is widened in view of the NEW Financial Fair Play, which will cap the ratio of squad costs (the sum of player and coach salaries, amortisation and agent fees) at a maximum of 70 per cent by the 2025/26 season.

Cons:
1. Binding oneself to such a long contract with a player poses the risk of not being able to 'get out' of a possible bad investment quickly and of having to continue paying the athlete's salary even if expectations of him are not met.
2. In the hypothesis of a transfer, it would be more complicated to register a capital gain. The player's value in the balance sheet will decrease more slowly over the years, and a higher bid than would have been sufficient in the case of a shorter contract might be needed to register a capital gain.


Let's see if it will be a winning strategy or not.
Click to expand...
It also just kicks the FFP can down the road. In 4/5 years time when other club’s spending for this period has been amortised, Chelsea will still be taking a hit for years to come.

They are taking a similar gamble to Barcelona in a way. It’s all good if the signings work out and they enjoy success and the increased revenue that comes from it. But they’ll have very little wriggle room if the these player don’t cut it.

High-risk, high-reward. It’s certainly gonna be fascinating to observe.
 
Daydreamer said:
It also just kicks the FFP can down the road. In 4/5 years time when other club’s spending for this period has been amortised, Chelsea will still be taking a hit for years to come.

They are taking a similar gamble to Barcelona in a way. It’s all good if the signings work out and they enjoy success and the increased revenue that comes from it. But they’ll have very little wriggle room if the these player don’t cut it.

High-risk, high-reward. It’s certainly gonna be fascinating to observe.
Click to expand...

The rules to FFP change next year. It will be a percentage fine for exceeding. Rich team tax. American sports owners just pay the tax and buy up players in leagues with no hard cap.
 
Reasonable salary with heavy bonus on top 4 finish, performance and trophies makes sense for top 6 clubs in EPL as other than Man City no other clubs can guarantee CL participation. Only if the clubs can get the players to sign the contract.
 
Rnd898 said:
To me the £97K figure seems very low for a transfer of this magnitude, at least compared to most other deals worth similar fees, and if that's all he's getting for 8,5 years without renegotiation or transfer then his agent has done a pretty shitty job IMO.
Click to expand...
Chelsea is no slave driver and has treated their players really well. If he performs well he will get paid accordingly.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
The rules to FFP change next year. It will be a percentage fine for exceeding. Rich team tax. American sports owners just pay the tax and buy up players in leagues with no hard cap.
Click to expand...
Ah, didn’t know that. Fair enough.
 
avgp_1 said:
If he is not on high wages and they rate him so very high, it makes sense to me
Click to expand...
TheReligion said:
He’s not going to be picking up a low wage. Why would he commit himself to that for nearly a decade?
Click to expand...
duffer said:
It was 70 million euros upfront and although I've genuinely not seen any wages mentioned, I'd be astonished if he's on less than £150K a week (he's got a shitty agent if he is).
Click to expand...

97k p/w based on the Athletic's reporting. Not that high. I assume he'll have clauses that bump up wages based on appearances, performance in prior seasons etc.

https://theathletic.com/4093504/2023/01/18/inside-mudryk-deal-chelsea-arsenal/#:~:text=Mudryk will be earning around,that eventually accepted across town.

Rightnr said:
It is to do with FFP. You 'lose' less value from the asset (player's transfer value) each year, the longer the contract.

This is just a book loss but it plays into annual accounts which affect your ability to spend on transfers and wages.
Click to expand...

Markolan said:
The amortisation rates for each individual player are reduced and consequently the room for manoeuvre is widened in view of the NEW Financial Fair Play, which will cap the ratio of squad costs (the sum of player and coach salaries, amortisation and agent fees) at a maximum of 70 per cent by the 2025/26 season.
Click to expand...

This is actually really interesting - thank you. I thought this was about player power and how many players are preferring to go out of contract and pocketing fat sign-ons these days.
 
Teja said:
97k p/w based on the Athletic's reporting. Not that high. I assume he'll have clauses that bump up wages based on appearances, performance in prior seasons etc.

https://theathletic.com/4093504/2023/01/18/inside-mudryk-deal-chelsea-arsenal/#:~:text=Mudryk will be earning around,that eventually accepted across town.

This is actually really interesting - thank you. I thought this was about player power and how many players are preferring to go out of contract and pocketing fat sign-ons these days.
Click to expand...

It is also about securing the asset - players tend to run contracts down a lot more nowadays, you cannot make money off their sales.
 
Skills said:
Mudryk has joined on an 8.5 year contract. Is everyone else missing a trick, or have Chelsea gone a bit mental with this new 7+ year contract strategy?
Click to expand...
It's to help with FFP through amortizing the cost of the transfer over a longer period. Could mean big trouble for them further down the line when they struggle to shift underperforming players on big wages, whilst 8 years down the line, some of this transfers cost will still be amortized through the books as well, decreasing their spend in that proverbial 8th year....
 
I think it's largely a good idea that's being dismissed because its coming alongside reckless spending. Look at mbappe, psg sign him for 180m nearly lose him in a free. We sign pogba for 90m, lose him on a free. Players are realising more and more, that it's far more lucrative to run down their contract then get a mega signing on bonus, clubs clearly need to find a way to stop this and it's quite a good idea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.