mate i spent over 30 years working for the DWP and it's predecessors for less than the average wage despite being very highly regarded for technical expertise so i may have lesser expectations. also tbh think you over estimate your average persons standards
That still suggests that money is your only (or at least prime) motivation, and I maintain that that isn't true for everybody.
it wasn't mine but i fully accept why people take that decision and don't get why others can't see the logic behind it
I can see the logic behind it, but I think it's short sighted and for me, doing something I want to do has a lot more effect on my choices than just chasing as much money as I can get. It's not as though they're likely to be on the bread-line anyway is it?
Honestly they get 6 year deals so is more than half a career at more money than they feel thry could get unless they really hit. They are settling imo. As I said dewsbury hall might well be the next Danny drinkwater and play very very little who knows but 30mil quid before tax is now his.
a lot of these players may never earn as much again and may well not have got such a lucrative offer again. A bird in the hand etc
To be honest, I think it's the sensible option. You've a gaurenteed very good wage for the next 6/7 years. Bad injury, just not develop all the ****e than can happen to a kid, doesn't matter, you're being paid. You're set for life. Or Gamble on a lesser contract at a lesser club, but hope you're going to make it. The sensible choice is join cheksea and milk them. If you make it big further contracts will come. If you don't you've got that nice safe contract to fall back on.
I wasn't talking about your attitude but the attitude of any player who'd rather sit on a bench while picking up his pay than play the game he's been dedicated to probably from a very young age. We've had the conversation about money being the driving force in people's choices loads of times on here and it's yet another topic where people are definitely on one side or the other and nothing in between.
Mates a chelsea fan and says he’s hates the last 3 years. Not because of bad football but because of the ridiculous money spent on youth players while selling your half decent academy players who are more than capable squad players and then the stupid comments that they have to sell these players… only cos you want to buy 3 more fancy brazillian ‘wonderkids’
I get the feeling Chelsea are using these players in same way abramovic’s Chelsea did but to more extreme. Chelsea for past 10-15 years have always been signing tonne of youth players and farm them on loan and then either hope 1 or 2 make it, a few others sell fr big money to make big profit and then the rest you move on for 5/6m and keep a steady stream of income. However now it almost to me anyway seems they are signing these players on big money, give them huge 7 year contracts and before it was so could amortise the money over it so when they flip them in 5 years the profit generated is far bigger than the money left in their contract and the initial outlay falls outside the 3 year ffp window. Changed a bit now given can only amortise over 5 years but still remains. sign player x for 40m over 7 year deal. That’s 8m a year over 5 year limit. Extend contract in couple years and then you’ve got 24m amortise over next 5 years at just under 5m a year. Sell them in a couple more years after another loan or two for £30m and suddenly you’ve got £30m of profit in that window to use to do the same again.
That cuts both ways. Many times I've responded to the "you'd do it for the money as well" claim by saying I wouldn't - only to be met with incredulity and the suggestion that I'm lying or being disingenuous. I'm not. My entire life I've made choices that I felt used my (limited) abilities to their best and gave me the most job satisfaction rather than the most money, and encouraged others in my family to follow the path that most appeals to them. Of course I'd like more money, but I genuinely don't see it as the most important thing to base my life upon. I realise others don't see it that way, but I'll still argue the case for it when it comes up.
Execpt it doesn't work thst way. Sure 40mil fee must go 8mil per year Year 1 the book value is 32. Sell for 35 and you make a book profit of 3. But you make a real cash loss of 5. Year 2 the book value is 24. Against sell for 35 and you are making a real loss you have to make up somewhere (cash into club) If you extend their deal you can only amortise the 24 over the new contract length so it make no sense to extend. They only have a book value profit and a certain level of cash. The club is hemorrhaging cash. 90mil last year, 121 the year before over 150mil the year before thst. It cannot actually go on for ever and this has to grind to a halt at some point
Do have to say that a lot of the South Americans have probably grown up in poverty and family’s aren’t well off and the chance to be earning 50k no matter what for 7 years will not only set them up for a good while but allow them to sort their immediate and extended family out. Not disagreeing with you that many others would put career development over money though. But I do think it’s hard to judge unless in that position as well (not saying you are just in general). It’s like the old Saudi argument, why move for 500k a week when already earning 200k a week. Until in that position and you weigh up what you can do with 500k it’s hard to fully judge players.
Yes but you hope that a couple of those 20m signings you can flip for 50m and make big profits that allow you to invest and then the others are just steady income. and reason I say extend is so that they have 3/4 years left on deal rather than just 1/2 which will decrease their value to buying clubs. I agree that in grand scheme unless you sell players for more than you are always losing but with clever accounting, ffp over 3 year cycle you can cover some loses in a couple of years until they drop off the ffp cycle. year 1 - loss 50m yesr 2 - loss 50m year 3 - profit 50m all good for ffp next gear that first 50m drops off and you now have a 0 loss over 2 years so in theory can spend 100m and be good.
It'd be real.nice of they could flip a couple bit they have to actually play to do so. When you buy 10 at 20 mil then 2 have to be worth 100mil to break even They will do very well not to make massive losses over the midfielders they fought us for tbh The issue here with ffp is not like that either. Again buy 5 players year 1 for 20.mil each (nice simple 4 mil a year negstive) So year 1 it's -20mil to offset. Year 2 it's also -20mil but you go do the same again so it jumps to -40mil to offset with other profits. Year 3 you do the same. Now it's-60mil. If you stop (thry show no sign of ot) Then you have to offset -60 in year 4 and year 5 and then -40 in year 6 (you've year 2 and 3 to offset ) And so forth. Thry are building a tsunami wave of amortisation losses that they have to offset. Most clubs try very very hard not to do this and keep it at an even predictable level thst real income.offsets. Obviously chelsea's number if way higher than this hence the mad schemes to try transfer their training ground and hotels out of the club as assets to look like sales to themselves to push the problem away.
