2033, wtf
Cole Palmer | Chelsea Player
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Had to double take that date 
Whaaaat
Why do Chelsea always offer players ridiculously lengthy contracts. Gonna be very hard to sell them if they become unhappy and want to leave.
If they want to leave, why would them having 7 years left rather than 4 years make it harder for Chelsea to sell them?
That's what I would think.
Happy or unhappy, ultimately it's only hard to sell if they're shit.
The risk with the length of contract is of the player mentally checks out and just go’s through the motions ( something we seems to burdened with) and wants to sit on his contact collecting his wage. That said In this particular instance I wouldn’t be unhappy to have palmer committed to my club for that contract.
Alright let’s look at it the other way round. If the club want rid then they have a player on massive wages for a lot longer and the player may not want to leave as he won’t get offered the same wages.
Ye I meant that. Other way round as I’ve just posted again. If the club want rid it will be harder as there on a lot more wages for a lot longer.
Well obviously, but that's the opposite of what you said.
You seemed to have described Jadon Sancho and Marcus Rashford!
He's a good player but it's such a weird gamble on Chelsea's part to assume he'll still be a good player in a decade.
These decade spanning contracts are absolutely bonkers.
These decade spanning contracts are absolutely bonkers.
the bigger risk is that they get seriously injured and can't play anymore. That's why most sports contracts are usually less than 5 years. Only baseball contracts are longer unless you're a pitcher.
When massive fees started being the norm the point that big clubs can't afford them anymore, you started seeing more players run their contracts down so they could be sold at a more affordable price, if not signed on a "free".
These long contracts is the answer to that. If he wants to go in a couple of years, whoever signs him is paying premium. It's protecting financial value.
Though I imagine there's a shit ton of clauses attached to protect the players interests too.
These long contracts is the answer to that. If he wants to go in a couple of years, whoever signs him is paying premium. It's protecting financial value.
Though I imagine there's a shit ton of clauses attached to protect the players interests too.
If they get injured to the point that they can't play anymore, they've got insurance.
The worry is that the player turns crap and he's sat on a big wages for years.
I’m not completely confident but I think insurance would cover them?
Just your standard 9 year contract
Sepp Blatter saw this coming
Have Chelsea mitigated for the very real scenario that these players on these huge contracts will start getting injured and the club will have to pay them until their huge contracts run out?
Seems really short sighted.
There's a very real chance of players becoming complacent and entitled as well.
Seems really short sighted.
There's a very real chance of players becoming complacent and entitled as well.
A DI policy for a high risk athlete is going to at best pay 60% of lost wages. And then you factor in that the player has zero resale value if he's seriously injured. I still think it's riskier than a player having a bad attitude bc the club could still try to sell them
One of the very first players this ownership signed was Fofana, and he has basically spent the last 2 years injured. He cost £70m.
I'm sure they're aware of all the risks involved.
I'm not sure what a "DI policy" is if I'm being honest. I'm guessing that's something from outside the UK insurance market?
Believe it or not, I've personally looked at these kind of policies for a premier league side in the past. If a player gets a career ending injury, they'll get their contract paid out.
I am not familiar with the particulars of UK. Insurance covering the remainder of contracts, at the least, is just standard business in the US. I just assumed it was a thing there.
If you are at a major University in an “earning” sport, they are commonplace to ensure a degree of “future potential earnings”
This changes nothing, Palmer will be a United legend by the time.
By what time?
Think it's more to do with the amortisation and the accounting treatment to help balance the books. Although I believe the PL may have capped the number of years you can do that.
Or on ridiculous wages
DI is just disability insurance. Yeah the contract will get paid out. I’m not disputing that. I’m just saying an insurance company would pay 60% and the club would pay the remaining 40% is what I meant.
There's talk of Nicholas Jackson getting a new extended deal. This just reminds me of Leeds under ridsdale, when he was handing out new contracts like sweets. We all know how that ended.....
I'm not really sure what you mean by disability insurance either! That sounds like something an individual would get.
There may be some kind of policy excess for the kind of policy a Premier League club will have but it won't be anywhere close to 40% of the value of the contract.
9 years? Insane.
First: he seriously needs to sack his agent. And anyone else represented by that moron also should change asap. I can't believe he had nobody close to him to stop him from doing something so stupid either. Wow
Second: how much is he gonna earn?
Second: how much is he gonna earn?
meh not sure i agree with that first part. Yeah he could sign a new contract in a couple years for money, or he could get injured tomorrow and never play again. Im sure he is getting paid pretty well. He has just secured generational wealth, i think he will be just fine.
He's taken a big reduction in salary because he loves the club so much.
Silly contracts from a silly club.
I mean his length of contract is utterly ridiculous but it was prior to the extension anyway.
Why wouldn’t he take a deserved pay-rise? It won’t do much to hinder his renegotiation stance.
Why wouldn’t he take a deserved pay-rise? It won’t do much to hinder his renegotiation stance.
Jackson is on pretty low wages for Chelsea standards. I don't think I'd be rushing to giving him an increase just yet, but he did kind of outperform his contract. I don't see a problem with rewarding players who perform above expectations.
If anything, it shows signing a long contract doesn't mean you get trapped on whatever the number you agree to for the length of that contract, even if you exceed expectations. Bumping Palmer and Jackson up provides a good incentive to the rest of the squad.