Turns out Chelsea signed Fernandez on an EIGHT AND A HALF YEAR CONTRACT!!!!! So, due to FFP being a ****ing joke, "only" another £15m spent. I don't get it at all. Sure, they may not part with £107m today (they might, I don't know), but Benfica sure as **** didn't agree to 8 years interest free ****ing credit. It makes absolutely zero sense. Even talk of 5 year deals, it still makes no sense. The only way it makes a lick of sense is if the word "amortisation" (which I'm almost certain was invented by these clubs and UEFA) is removed from FFP rules.
I sort of agree, however that's business finance... It'd **** us over too. I just think the maximum you should be able to offer should be 3 years, and if you want to tie your men down longer, and they improve, roll them a new contract for 3 years each year. Player sales should also be reflective of the payment terms you agree to also. Chelsea benefit hugely from that as they're getting a big benefit by player sales being recognised in 1 hit.
Ultimately it will all fall down around them…..a manager needs to be involved in player recruitment, how else is he meant to implement a playing style, Potter clearly doesn’t have a day….What Chelsea are doing is stockpiling/flexing muscle, but there’s no clear plan, just throwing enough shiit at the wall in the hope some sticks. The yank who owns them will fail within 3 years and will be looking for some sucker to buy the club.
For me, cashflow is cashflow, which is what these fabricated "rules" are supposed to be protecting. If Boehly leaves tomorrow, or is imprisoned, Chelsea owe Benfica £107m. End of. Not £14m now, and each year for 8 years. Similarly regardless of length of contract, Chelsea have to pay Fernandez each week/month. So it stands that the net cost, right now, to Chelsea is one year of the players contract + fee + agents fees. All of which should be immediately accountable. The only "gimme" should be that you can balance your books with future TV payments, owner payments and success, so you can take out debt but need to ensure it's cleared. The middle point is why it's a monopoly - they have all worked to remove that rule, AFTER they all got to an insurmountable commercial level. We - and indeed any club - should be able to benefit from an owners generosity without punishment. As long as the balance sheet is in good nick, what diff does it make if, say, Tony Bloom wanted to spunk £200m on players? Anything else is utter, utter madness. Yet that's what we have - madness, governed by ****ing idiots.
I disagree. I think they can do whatever they want and there's no punishment. Because they (in part) own the rules.
Also important to note it was on private property not a public road but funny seeing the burn Joelinton lot out in force again
If its on private property its not an issue is it? Not sure but I thought it was only public roads that counted.
Don't agree. If he's been driving on public roads whilst banned then he deserves a bollocking, the bans there for a reason. It also, for me, sends alarm bells about his attitude. I have a genuine worry about the guy and whether he's actually a good fit for us at all, if he thinks some rules are unimportant and shouldn't apply to him then he should be called out.