• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Transfer fred.

So why give him an 8 year contract then?

You are basically saying there is no benefit ffp wise but it does still help them as they pay off the transfer fee over the 8 years?

But why would Brighton agree to that?
 
AjaxDeSuperYids said:
So why give him an 8 year contract then?

You are basically saying there is no benefit ffp wise but it does still help them as they pay off the transfer fee over the 8 years?

But why would Brighton agree to that?
Click to expand...
The contact length has no relevance to the payment period
That is rarely, if ever public info
The clubs don’t need to declare that
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The contact length has no relevance to the payment period
That is rarely, if ever public info
The clubs don’t need to declare that
Click to expand...

I didn’t think it did but must have misunderstood your paying off over 100 year comment.

So giving him an 8 year contract doesn’t help with ffp due to the tweak in the rules.

So why give him an 8 year contract then?
 
AjaxDeSuperYids said:
I didn’t think it did but must have misunderstood your paying off over 100 year comment.

So giving him an 8 year contract doesn’t help with ffp due to the tweak in the rules.

So why give him an 8 year contract then?
Click to expand...
So they have him tied down long-term? Don't see any downside to a long-term contract for Chelsea unless his wages are ridiculous and it stops him from moving if they eventually want to sell him.
 
DubSpur said:
So they have him tied down long-term? Don't see any downside to a long-term contract for Chelsea unless his wages are ridiculous and it stops him from moving if they eventually want to sell him.
Click to expand...

Exactly that is why clubs don’t normally issue such long contracts in case they flop and they want to move them on.

8 year contract and the like only became a thing due to the loophole in the ffp rules.

Now that loophole is gone I see no reason to give near on anyone an 8 year contract unless they are like Mbappe and he is up for that.
 
AjaxDeSuperYids said:
Exactly that is why clubs don’t normally issue such long contracts in case they flop and they want to move them on.

8 year contract and the like only became a thing due to the loophole in the ffp rules.

Now that loophole is gone I see no reason to give near on anyone an 8 year contract unless they are like Mbappe and he is up for that.
Click to expand...
Other side of that is he can't run down his contract and move on a free and they don't have to give him a new contract with higher wages to keep him.
 
AjaxDeSuperYids said:
I didn’t think it did but must have misunderstood your paying off over 100 year comment.

So giving him an 8 year contract doesn’t help with ffp due to the tweak in the rules.

So why give him an 8 year contract then?
Click to expand...
8 year seems to be their new default, so it must be for accounting purposes.

I'm going to guess the way Boehly put it through the books is via some kind of funding arrangement as a loan/similar to CFC, so 8 years makes lending against the purchase viable. Perhaps something to do with lending rules wherever the entity supplying the funds is registered?
 
monkeybarry said:
8 year seems to be their new default, so it must be for accounting purposes.

I'm going to guess the way Boehly put it through the books is via some kind of funding arrangement as a loan/similar to CFC, so 8 years makes lending against the purchase viable. Perhaps something to do with lending rules wherever the entity supplying the funds is registered?
Click to expand...
Could be as the players are probably funded a different way. Money borrowed off the blue Inc club that owns Chelsea and is borrowing all the money apparently with no security on the club

yet that’s all the company owns

Especially with the fudging they are doing to get players to Strasbourg and also the new loan they are seeking for £400m

wonder when they will spend the money on the infrastructure and ladies team that they committed too when buying the club
 
Did the 5 year thing come in to effect (affect?) this season? Thought it may have been from next summer
 
Dier not in todays squad so that looks like he's on the way out to me - you would think that means another CB signing is on the cards, especially if Sanchez is still on offer - thpugh his performance against Barca was pretty impressive so maybe won over Ange?
 
billyiddo said:
Dier not in todays squad so that looks like he's on the way out to me - you would think that means another CB signing is on the cards, especially if Sanchez is still on offer - thpugh his performance against Barca was pretty impressive so maybe won over Ange?
Click to expand...
Dier not in the squad, not given a vice-captain role, reportedly taken Spurs off his bio on Instagram, something smells here, must be moving.
 
DubSpur said:
Dier not in the squad, not given a vice-captain role, reportedly taken Spurs off his bio on Instagram, something smells here, must be moving.
Click to expand...

More inclined to give Sanchez a chance as i think confidence is a lot to do with him, a manager can provide that and it's easy to see with the last few that wouldn't have been the case.

But yeah would be happy enough with a new signing instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back