What's with Chelsea and hijacking transfers?

More than hijacking players, I am concerned Chelsea is rewriting how transfers will occur in the future especially for high potential players 21-24 years old. You could see disproportionately high transfer fees and giving players even more power in the transfer market. You are also reducing the incentive for a player to stay focussed after 3-4 years with the club knowing their futures are already set.

This was in an effort to circumvent FFP which I consider useless anyway, but it may have created a whole new set of problems.
 
Changeisgood said:
More than hijacking players, I am concerned Chelsea is rewriting how transfers will occur in the future especially for high potential players 21-24 years old. You could see disproportionately high transfer fees and giving players even more power in the transfer market. You are also reducing the incentive for a player to stay focussed after 3-4 years with the club knowing their futures are already set.

This was in an effort to circumvent FFP which I consider useless anyway, but it may have created a whole new set of problems.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if this is parody or not but did you forget how much Mbappe went for? Or Martial at the time? Or Antony? Or Pepe?
 
Devil_forever said:
I don’t know if this is parody or not but did you forget how much Mbappe went for? Or Martial at the time? Or Antony? Or Pepe?
Click to expand...

This is not about the transfer fee, well not directly. This is about contract length. How long before our young players start asking for 8-9 year contracts?
 
Changeisgood said:
This is not about the transfer fee, well not directly. This is about contract length. How long before our young players start asking for 8-9 year contracts?
Click to expand...
Which has been mitigated by FIFA already starting this summer.
 
Changeisgood said:
This is not about the transfer fee, well not directly. This is about contract length. How long before our young players start asking for 8-9 year contracts?
Click to expand...

I don't see why you'd complain about your young players signing 8-9 year deals as long as they also accept (relatively) low base wages and structured incentives.

I know it's not a perfect translation, but one of the two best run teams in baseball (the Atlanta Braves) does exactly this - they offer lifelong financial stability on deals that are long but do not reach the absolute highest levels of the sport on an annual basis. Players accept because they are guaranteed a large sum of money and they insure themselves against the worse case scenario (i.e. career-ending injury), and it's great for the team because they have much more flexibility in terms of their payroll, they don't have to pay premiums to sign free agents, and they keep the core of the team intact and settled year over year.

Ironically, Boehly et al own the other one of the two best run teams in baseball, but it really does seem to be the Braves that are the model.

Pexbo said:
Which has been mitigated by FIFA already starting this summer.
Click to expand...

FIFA has done nothing to limit the length of contracts that are allowed as long as they are compliant with local employment laws - what they have done is limit the amortisation period for any transfer fee to only the first 5 years of a contract.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
FIFA has done nothing to limit the length of contracts that are allowed as long as they are compliant with local employment laws - what they have done is limit the amortisation period for any transfer fee to only the first 5 years of a contract.
Click to expand...
Right. Which has mitigated the issue because the entire reason Chelsea have been offering these long contracts is to amortise over a longer period.

No club is going to offer 8 or 9 year contracts and amortise the entire contract over the first 5 years.
 
Pexbo said:
Right. Which has mitigated the issue because the entire reason Chelsea have been offering these long contracts is to amortise over a longer period.

No club is going to offer 8 or 9 year contracts and amortise the entire contract over the first 5 years.
Click to expand...

Yes - but I think the person you were responding to was worried about your own players requesting 8-9 year deals, which could still happen as there is no amortisation for homegrown players.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Yes - but I think the person you were responding to was worried about your own players requesting 8-9 year deals, which could still happen as there is no amortisation for homegrown players.
Click to expand...
Players aren’t going to start asking for longer contracts. It’s in a players interest to keep it short because that means more chance of negotiations with your own club or another.
 
Pexbo said:
Players aren’t going to start asking for longer contracts. It’s in a players interest to keep it short because that means more chance of negotiations with your own club or another.
Click to expand...

Yeah I generally agree - though there's no reason you couldn't build in negotiation clauses based on hitting minutes played or that kind of thing. I suspect we might see more creativity in contracts, especially for players making the transition from youth to senior level.
 
Josep Dowling said:
No it hasn’t. The amortisation in the accounts can only be for 5 years. The contract length can still be longer than this.
Click to expand...
Right but see above reply. That amortisation was the entire reason that clubs (Chelsea) started to offer them.
 
Pexbo said:
Right but see above reply. That amortisation was the entire reason that clubs (Chelsea) started to offer them.
Click to expand...

You're right. Limiting it to 5 years put a stop to what Chelsea were trying to do. Unless there's a different loophole I'm not aware of, future Chelsea signings will likely just go back to 5 year contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.