I thought………..
- Thread starter ArmadaSur
- Start date
hackneyfox
Roofer
They can't spread the fee out over seven years though, just the five I believe. If they want to risk signing a player on a large salary for seven years with the risk that he could be another Fofana then that's the choice of their idiot owner.
T
Tuz_Not_Tuzz
Guest
i think somebody at chelsea has a dropped a clanger there. why would you sign a player for longer than the fee can be amortized or whatever it is (cue buz)?
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
£23m over 5 years vs 7 years is not a huge difference (what is it? +£1.3m a year for 5 years and zero in years 6 & 7 unless he signs an extension?) and they'll probably chuck him out on loan straight away anyway for a fee to cover that. But, why 7 years if not just for stretching amortisation? Dunno. Speculative? Maybe they fancy the chances that he will come good? Player (and his agent's) demand based on Chelsea's previous deals ("we'll sign but we want wot they got")?
From Chelsea's perspective I guess they would view it as potentially having a good prospect tied down for 7 years and quicker amortisation vs contract length means if & when he gets sold on, the better P&L impact (less loss if he is rubbish, more profit if he is shit hot). The risk for Chelsea is if he turns out to be a dud & they struggle to get rid because he doesn't want to go. Probably less of a risk for them than, say, us. For £23m if he comes good then they potentially have a player at a bargain price to help them achieve stuff & on less salary than a big name (until they either sell or extend) and will have the advantage of being registered as a "club trained player" by UEFA. Scratch this, he's 19 not 18, sorry, misread.
Last edited:
DagenhamFox
Blue Roofer
Plus he’s young and given most of their signings last year were for similar length contracts if they all gel and start to be come decent their side will be more settled for longer.