Odogie signs 6 year deal?

comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 19 minutes ago
I have not suggested you are amortizing, i have stated you have given the player a six year contract.

For the less informed amongst you, Cfc giving out 6/7/ 8 year contracts amortized or not is a gamble not an abuse of any loop holes.

So as that is the factual case Spurs giving a player a 6 year contract is similarly a gamble/ risk on the player.

It amount to the same with amortization or not!

I hope that helps
----------------------------------------------------------------------

CFC have handed out lengthy contracts purely to reduce the amortisation cost on their accounts, enabling them to spend big and get deals done.

That is as clear as day and undeniable.

There is a risk to this and the risk gets bigger and bigger the bigger the transfer fee and the wages.

Spurs, with Udogie, paid £15m. So the risk of taking a hit on player trading is very low if, for some reason, Udogie fails and we want to sell.

Also, his wages are reported at £60k a week (£3.5m a year, about £20m over the length of his contract). This level of wages would not be a barrier to selling him in the same way a highly paid player is. So again, little risk.

Spurs have done this deal to tie down a very good young player who has already proven himself in this league.

This deal also neatly has the effect of lowering our amortisation a little bit, while increasing wages, so probably a relatively neutral financial impact.

To try and conflate this deal with the way CFC have been operating in the transfer market is way off the mark...and i think you know that!

BTW, as way of an example.

Enzo Fernandez - £106m fee. £315k a week wages. 8 years.

Total cost of deal £237m

Destiny Udogie - Fee £15m, Wages £60k

Total cost of deal £38m

If it all goes wrong and the players "Do a Sancho" and are happy pissssing their career away on the PS5, then Spurs 'mistake' in offering such a long contract comes at the fraction of the cost of CFC doing the same.

Not only this, CFC have done this with multiple signings. They are exposed big time. Spurs its a considered risk, CFC its a crazy gamble!

Phil, tbf, my article does seem slightly disingenuous i must admit.

My point is

Giving out long term contracts and amortizing to full term is not abusing the FFP system.

When Cfc did this it was not against any rule and as i understand this rule is now about to be changed.

No one at Cfc has circumnavigated or abused anything, as has been loudly voiced by the Footballing community and obsessively by our old mucker Sandy & the Tottenham 606 community.

It is a gamble/ risk by the club, not an abuse of a loophole.

Leading football finance experts have conceded this.

The truth is that clubs amortize player contracts over the period of the players contract as a standard, it is nothing new.

The issue which seems to have got everyones knickers in a twist is that Cfc have had the audacity to spend in excess of 1 bln over 3 windows and have taken the gamble on giving players long term contracts 6/7 & 8 years.

The reality is the club have taken a huge risk by tying players in for such long periods, as we know this can have significant consequences, when the players fall out favor, form or the club.

The other issue has been the unconventional way the club have gone about investing the funds into the purchasing of players, as a norm all most clubs would/ should have a business forcast to rely upon with to base the expenditure, inclusive of next seasons entry into finance generating competition (C/L) which CFc clearly did not as was reliant on the funds generated from player sales ( something which is far from guaranteed)

But the club does seem to have enough assets on iuts books to comply, dependent on how the accounting is done and accepted.

This again is another gamble/risk.

Now back to my rather disingenuous article, my point was Tottenham have given out a 6 year contract to a player, this is likewise a risk/ gamble by the club amortized or not.

But it is not an abuse of any loopholes, similarly as imo the the long contract strategy by the ownership of Cfc is not.

It is simply a risk/ gamble which all clubs take from time to time

I hope that helps Devon

Eh clearly it was an abuse of the loophole. Chelsea fans just didn’t want to hear about it being a massive gamble at the time. One that absolutely nobody is shocked has not paid off.

It is not an abuse of a loophole.

There is no loop hole!

It is a gamble/ risk.

Pays off ? what do mean?

Do you mean that the club is in 12 place and out of contention for C/L football by a mile ?

From that perspective it clearly has not paid off.

or do you mean that the club have breached FFP?

Well as i understand that will not be determined until June24 when the club must next provide evidence of compliance.

Which is as yet an unknown or do you 18355 have some insider knowledge the rest of us do not have access to ?

If you do please provide it!

I hope you don’t have an important job

Eh clearly it was an abuse of the loophole. Chelsea fans just didn’t want to hear about it being a massive gamble at the time. One that absolutely nobody is shocked has not paid off.

i think you will find a significant % of Cfc supporters were well aware of fact that the clubs strategy was a huge risk/ gamble, but as far as i know that is not abuse of any regulation, as the club have the assets to comply.

Edin your point is ?

That there may be casualties if you had any responsibility

Ok, ooohhh that is not very nice is it now.