pocco
loco
Ah cmon, nothing wrong with having a laugh at Chelsea's bizarre and feckless spending.
I get that, but isn't this the opposite?
Ah cmon, nothing wrong with having a laugh at Chelsea's bizarre and feckless spending.
How can we laugh at anyone while we're shit brigade is always strong.Ah cmon, nothing wrong with having a laugh at Chelsea's bizarre and feckless spending.
It's absolutely mental, why isn't everyone talking about it?! If its true, it's just bonkers.
I think it was a PSG brief in all honesty. I doubt it is true.
The 5yr thing is to prevent accounting gimmicks for FFP I believe, between the player and the club there's still an 8 year deal. That has benefits like not losing players on a free, retaining value etc. (Woodward must be super frustrated with himself that he didn't think it up somewhere).
18 Special provisions relating to contracts between professionals and clubs
1. If an intermediary is involved in the negotiation of a contract, he shall be named in that contract.
2. The minimum length of a contract shall be from its effective date until the end of the season, while the maximum length of a contract shall be five years. Contracts of any other length shall only be permitted if consistent with national laws. Players under the age of 18 may not sign a professional contract for a term longer than three years. Any clause referring to a longer period shall not be recognised
17 Consequences of terminating a contract without just cause The following provisions apply if a contract is terminated without just cause:
1. In all cases, the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject to the provisions of article 20 and Annexe 4 in relation to training compensation, and unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation for the breach shall be calculated with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport, and any other objective criteria. These criteria shall include, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period.
I'm told that PSG closed the deal by purchasing Portugal.
I think that it's due to a preexisting FIFA regulation. FIFA and UEFA only recognize the first 5 years of a contract and they are only allowed if in line with national laws.
And to avoid doubts here is the previous article and a key sentence:
It just can't be I refuse to believe it, it would be a whole new bizarre level of weirdness in modern football.
How many midfielders do PSG need ffs? Asensio on his way as well.
A shame that we were not in for him. A combative, skilled midfielder like him would be perfect to rotate with Casemiro. Hope we're in for Caicedo at least.
I'm told that PSG closed the deal by purchasing Portugal.
So basically you can give a player a 20 year contract if you want to but you can only amortise it over the first 5 years?
Have to love PSGs spitefulness (when not directed at us thankfully).
Barca tried tapping up Veratti and they paid out Neymars utterly bonkers release clause just because.
Chelsea mess the Ziyech transfer up and PSG threaten to report them to Uefa while stealing Ugarte from under their nose.
Brilliant
While people have run with that myth, something a bit more serious happened between these two clubs in 2017 and events in 2023 makes it a bit more interesting. PSG filled an official complaint concerning the refereeing of a game between the two clubs and I remember that at the time it was rumoured that Al Khelaifi was lobbying at the UEFA to monitor Barcelona games and their refereeing. On the other side Barcelona were lobbying against PSG regarding FFP.
Sounds like Chelsea did try to buy a stake of Sporting, PSG got wind and threatened them and Chelsea quietly dropped out.
I’m utterly shocked that anybody would think that about a game involving Barca
Don't both imply its true? Sporting pushing Ugarte to sign for you because it benefitted them in more ways than one?That’s what PSG are alleging. I don’t know if it’s true, there’s two things I don’t understand about it. One implies it’s true and the other implies it isn’t. Sporting were pushing Ugarte to sign for Chelsea, according the same French report, so were they accepting of this kind of proposal? The other thing is, why did Chelsea pull out? High wages were cited but if PSG are actually offering the same as Chelsea, then what other reason could there be for pulling out, except what PSG are alleging might be true? Bizarre stuff.
Don't both imply its true? Sporting pushing Ugarte to sign for you because it benefitted them in more ways than one?
While people have run with that myth, something a bit more serious happened between these two clubs in 2017 and events in 2023 makes it a bit more interesting. PSG filled an official complaint concerning the refereeing of a game between the two clubs and I remember that at the time it was rumoured that Al Khelaifi was lobbying at the UEFA to monitor Barcelona games and their refereeing. On the other side Barcelona were lobbying against PSG regarding FFP.
I mean Boehly is a clown but trying to buy some of the club he’s buying a player from is a new one.
Financial benefit? Hasn't Portuguese football been one of most highly affected financially post-covid? And the promise of future funds somewhere somehow? Obviously all speculation but why would Sporting accept a deal selling a stake? Because all the reports were they had accepted and were actively pushing him to Chelsea.I don’t believe Sporting would be okay with Chelsea buying a stake in their club. Why would they want us to do that? That’s absurd. The fact that we pulled out so promptly after briefing that the deal was imminent and medical were being prepared kinda implies it could be true.
Financial benefit? Hasn't Portuguese football been one of most highly affected financially post-covid? And the promise of future funds somewhere somehow? Obviously all speculation but why would Sporting accept a deal selling a stake? Because all the reports were they had accepted and were actively pushing him to Chelsea.
Hence why I think it isn’t true and it’s just PSG engaging in PR warfare.
Isn’t Sporting a fan owned club?