Chelsea have just signed Reece James for another 6 years.
OR
Reece James has just signed on at Chelsea for another 6 years.

Why? In who's interest is that deal?
I mean, it doesn't really matter, but where is the money goin?

Jeez - only six years? That's a tad precarious. My current contract runs till I am 67 years old.

Football has some strange concepts and some came from the Bosman ruling.

When I signed a contract withRolls Royce it was to retirement, which they paid into a retirement fund.

Football appears to work outside the normal rules of law.

But it’s all on the side of the player until he is 34.

I believe Fofana signed for Chelsea on a 7 year deal

Longer contracts are standard in the US I think? Are they American owners at Chelsea now?

Cornet was signed by us on a 5 year deal- I don’t think anyone on this messageboard batted an eyelid

I think our latest batch of players have signed on 4 year deals. Maybe that’s what players want now, longer deals with release clauses or something? Agents will be happy too no doubt

Not with Reece James specifically but as transfer fees increase this will perhaps look better to the accountants and give the bankers some comfort when that £x million pounds is buying you the rights to 5 years of a player's career rather than three.

All about the amortisation on the asset and ffp, basically

If you think about it 3yr deals don’t make much sense for a club

Obviously very simplistic and depends on player signed but;

Year 1 you’d see a settling in period and the player may not get going until halfway through the season

Year 2 they have a blinding season

By the time they get to year 3, the negotiations start for renewal or the club look to sell to get some money back

The better, more costly, the player, the longer the contract. You have to future proof your investment. If Chelsea had paid all that money for Fofana, just so he could walk away on a free in 3-4 years would be madness.

He gets job security, especially if he gets injured, and Chelsea can demand more money if someone else wants him in the next couple of years.

Plus FFP stuff as someone else said

The length of a contract seems in some way irrelevant to me. The fact is if a player wants to leave or another club offers enough he will go. They might as well sign on a month by month basis. How long was Cornet with us? Football contracts don’t seem to be worth the paper they are written on. It’s all just show. I love it when a report says Alfredo Defacto has committed himself to Melchester Rovers until 2059, meaning he will leave just whenever he likes.

houseboy wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:19 am

The length of a contract seems in some way irrelevant to me. The fact is if a player wants to leave or another club offers enough he will go. They might as well sign on a month by month basis. How long was Cornet with us? Football contracts don’t seem to be worth the paper they are written on. It’s all just show. I love it when a report says Alfredo Defacto has committed himself to Melchester Rovers until 2059, meaning he will leave just whenever he likes.

Naturally if a player wants to go, then they'll generally be moved on, but the length of contract is certainly relevant in terms of what the selling club can hope to recoup in terms of a transfer fee, this is why many clubs don't like saleable assets to get into the final year of their existing deals, as this usually means their value drops dramatically, or they simply see out the final year, and then are free to join another club, with quite often a hefty signing on bonus due to them being a free agent.

Cornet had a release clause, so he's perhaps not the best example, however even without such a clause he'd have almost certainly moved on anyway following relegation.

Works both ways mind you, because most clubs insert relegation clauses into contracts to ensure their wage bills are under control if they should suffer relegation.

It is interesting that people focus on this:
- in the National League the norm is a 10 month contract (the length of a season
- in League 1 and 2 one and two year contracts are the norm
- In the Championship I would speculate that 2 and 3 year contracts are the norm
- While in the Premier League (for established clubs) 4 years and upwards are the norm

At the lower levels it is about de risking costs, at the top end it is about de-risking costs amortisation has a huge role to play but also at the top end it is about protecting investment value - though that can go badly wrong as witnessed at Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton and Manchester United in recent years (can't shift players on large contracts)

of course this can have a knock on effect on transfers witness the introduction/normalisation of transfers with the no 1st year down payment that was talked about on yesterdays Price of Football podcast. I find it strange that no one is talking about this and wonder if our club tried some of this over the summer

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 12:28 pm

Naturally if a player wants to go, then they'll generally be moved on, but the length of contract is certainly relevant in terms of what the selling club can hope to recoup in terms of a transfer fee, this is why many clubs don't like saleable assets to get into the final year of their existing deals, as this usually means their value drops dramatically, or they simply see out the final year, and then are free to join another club, with quite often a hefty signing on bonus due to them being a free agent.

Cornet had a release clause, so he's perhaps not the best example, however even without such a clause he'd have almost certainly moved on anyway following relegation.

Works both ways mind you, because most clubs insert relegation clauses into contracts to ensure their wage bills are under control if they should suffer relegation.

On that last point, doesn't that make a nonsense of the concept of parachute payments?

Alanstevensonsgloves wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 12:47 pm

On that last point, doesn't that make a nonsense of the concept of parachute payments?

Not really because not all clubs are sensible enough to implement wage cuts on relegation, and even then it's probable their overall salaries will still be higher than when they were last in the Championship, obviously this will vary depending on how generous each club is, and also how long they've remained in the PL, you'd imagine the longer a club has spent at the top table the higher their wage bill will have become, so although it might be trimmed upon dropping to the Championship, it will still need paying, and that's assuming they can move on some of their biggest earners, which isn't always the case, and is often why clubs run into financial difficulties.

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 12:28 pm

Naturally if a player wants to go, then they'll generally be moved on, but the length of contract is certainly relevant in terms of what the selling club can hope to recoup in terms of a transfer fee, this is why many clubs don't like saleable assets to get into the final year of their existing deals, as this usually means their value drops dramatically, or they simply see out the final year, and then are free to join another club, with quite often a hefty signing on bonus due to them being a free agent.

Cornet had a release clause, so he's perhaps not the best example, however even without such a clause he'd have almost certainly moved on anyway following relegation.

Works both ways mind you, because most clubs insert relegation clauses into contracts to ensure their wage bills are under control if they should suffer relegation.

All very true but the idea of a human being as a ‘saleable asset’ is somewhat abhorrent to me. It says everything about football these days (although to be fair even in the distant past they were treated like property).
It was indeed a sad day when football ceased being a sport and became a business. Even many of our own fans only think in terms of a players future value rather than his current worth on the pitch.
All very sad really. I can see the onset of American style franchise clubs in the not-too-distant.