Only dumbass Chelsea would offer a kid a nine year contract at 250k a week. They really are a circus. How long does anyone last there?
|
|
Only dumbass Chelsea would offer a kid a nine year contract at 250k a week. They really are a circus. How long does anyone last there?
We will bring someone in and I think the £84m bid for Bellingham, the £95m up front for Szoboszlai and Mac Allister (versus usual amortised fees) plus the £46m Lavia bid and £111m Caicedo bid suggest we are willing to spend to a relative extent.
These on the back of acquiring the £37m Diaz, the £65m rising to £85m Núñez and the £35m rising to £45m Gakpo within less than 2 years.
To buy 3 first-team attackers and (almost) buy 3 first-team midfielders within 20 or so months might not be as full-bodied a set of business as what some of the other clubs around us have been doing, granted. But I don't think we lack ambition - just have a very different way of doing things, which has faults to go with the merits.
I do think we'll bring someone in - but not a "for the sake of it" signing. I don't want to bring in the Kabak and....whatever the other fella's name was when Konate wasn't available.
I bet FSG will have taken out loans against the club for Szoboszlai and Mac Allister
Amortisation as I understand it is an accounting practice, it makes no odds if you pay up front or in installments. It's a way of presenting your books on paper.
Need to see players added fairly quickly now, assuming the latest BS reporting actually materialises, that cfc sign both lavia and caicedo.
The 5-year thing refers to payments.
Let's say Chelsea bought a £100m player and signed him on a 10-year contract. That's fine.
What they CAN'T do (and this is only a recent change) is pay £10m per year for those 10 years - at best they can pay £20m per year for the first 5 years of the contract - it has to be paid in 5 years.
Think that's the right way of it and should anyone want to correct that, please do.
Bookmarks