You can give 29 year contracts if you want.
He obtains similar with a 5 year contract and doesn't sign away control over the better part of his career. Not to mention he's also significantly weakened his position when it comes to his next raise - because however high his current deal might be now, it probably won't be in 5-6 years time, when big clubs' revenues might be nearly double what they are now and players of his level are signing contracts worth twice as much
It might not be 40% but it would probably be above 20%. And the premiums on that insurance are going to be extremely high as well.
You can, it's the amortisation period that has been reduced to 5 years.
So they've given him a 9 year contract with no amortisation benefit? I would have thought that was the entire purpose. Seems bizarre.
This sort of thing is taken care of with clauses such as the weekly wage having to increase in order to be within 15% of the maximum salary paid to a player at the club.
Those are surprisingly reasonable wages relative to their transfer fees.
He was on a seven year contract and just got more money after one year, if players improve and play well, clubs always give out raises. We could have kept Bruno on that initial contract which would have ran until he was 32, we offered him a new one within maybe 18 months because it’s the only way to keep them happy, and you need your best players happy.
My personal understanding of the “project” was that this is how it would eventually work. The foundation of players would be set, the new base of the wage structure would be set, and then contracts would get re-negotiated when merit warranted it. If a player doesnt nail down a spot or gets beaten out by one of the younger “future potentials” then they get moved, usually at a profit most of the players we signed after the shambles first windows.
If they injure themselves so catastrophically they can’t play, then again, you have insurance.
once again you have to make assumptions on things, even if it is likely that some will happen. If he gets injured tomorrow and can never play, a 5 year contract costs him 4 years of wages compared to this 9 year contract he is signing. Maybe he just never wanted to have to go thru contract negotiations again, and just wants the security of knowing he literally will have more money than he could reasonably spend. As long as he doesnt just get fleets of jets he will never have to worry about money again.
He signed on 1/9/23. At that point PSR allowance in terms of amortisation was the length of contract the rule change took effect I believe only was in respect of transfers from Jan24. So his fee will be divided by 7 in PSR calculations
How much are you saying Mudryk was signed for? Lowest I’ve seen is £60 million. So if you want to offload him next summer, you’ll need a team ready to pay £43 million to not take any kind of loss in PSR terms.
How do we know their isn’t clauses/release clauses in the contract?
or that there arent just normal pay rise per year amount in there? If he signed something for 9 years that includes just a basic even like 5 percent raise per year that is pretty good when coupled with the just absolutely insane job security he has now
In relation to Batshuayi at the point he was sold he had little to no value left to be amortised so technically we did make a profit on him. Rahaman cost £14 million and I very much doubt that any of the add on clauses were activated. Like you I can’t see any type of profit .
Yes, in PSR terms, Batshuayi didn’t you lose any extra than what you committed with the original transfer fee. But you still spent £30 million for an average player. Had he been on a 9 year contract, he would have been an extra burden on PSR, which is my point about these new signings.
Why? If things go badly, he’ll have his pick of top clubs queuing up for him.
