Silva has made no secret of wanting to end his career in Brazil, might opt to do that while he's in good nick before falling victim to the knackers yard.
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than buying another striker that we ruin
Reminds me of a fool and his money soon departed...I wonder why
Trying to rationalise this signing...
--------------------------------------------------------
What's there to rationalise?
It's clearly Tuchel's fault
That's a lot of loans he will be on in the next few years
Big Benoit can get the feet up and cigars out now and enjoy the next 7.5 years
7.5 years, reminds me of that mental Pardew contract at Newcastle
stop copying us by ignoring your weakest position and buying one for the position you're already stacked in (just a lil joke before someone cries)
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£35m transfer fee for a crap player repeatedly sent on loan. How's that a win?
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he is brilliant he will be sent on loan - de Bruyne, Salah
Can't argue about de Bruyne but Salah looked like crap in the admittedly too few appearances he made for us.
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he is brilliant he will be sent on loan - de Bruyne, Salah
------------------------------------------------
Salah was NOT brilliant for us.
De Bryune was, certainly in terms of the potential being obvious, but he was sold - not loaned.
gfycat.com/completeuncomfortablefossa
This was Salah's Chelsea career
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£35m transfer fee for a crap player repeatedly sent on loan. How's that a win?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan fees are around £3-5m and then when 2 years are left sell him
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£35m transfer fee for a crap player repeatedly sent on loan. How's that a win?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan fees are around £3-5m and then when 2 years are left sell him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they buy this play, loan him out sell him and make a loss or break even?
All i am saying is that it aint a win win. You will struggle to find an example of a player brought for such a lofty sum who was sold for big money having been loaned out over and over.
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They spent £170m on 3 defenders and have underwhelmed defensively.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They spent £170m on 3 defenders and have underwhelmed defensively.
------------------------------------------------------
We've spent close to 300mil since the summer & gotten weaker everywhere. Why limit it to the defence?
Actually that's a lie. Thanks to Potter's trust in him, Kepa's gone from toilet duck to being sort of sh!t. That's a win
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They spent £170m on 3 defenders and have underwhelmed defensively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and score fewer because they can’t replace the goals they lost from Rudiger and Alonso.
I wasn’t even joking when I said in the summer Chelsea will have problems replacing their goals. Their defenders were their top scorers. They were set piece kings last season, even when they were supposedly battering teams when they were top.
Bit like Spurs this season actually, but not as shiiiiit and could defend.
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 27 minutes ago
Bit like Spurs this season actually, but not as shiiiiit and could defend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Feels like a decade ago now
Sign in if you want to comment
Benoit Badiashile Official: 7.5 yr contract
Page 1 of 2
posted on 5/1/23
Silva has made no secret of wanting to end his career in Brazil, might opt to do that while he's in good nick before falling victim to the knackers yard.
posted on 5/1/23
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
posted on 5/1/23
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than buying another striker that we ruin
posted on 5/1/23
Reminds me of a fool and his money soon departed...I wonder why
posted on 5/1/23
Trying to rationalise this signing...
--------------------------------------------------------
What's there to rationalise?
It's clearly Tuchel's fault
posted on 5/1/23
That's a lot of loans he will be on in the next few years
posted on 5/1/23
Big Benoit can get the feet up and cigars out now and enjoy the next 7.5 years
posted on 5/1/23
7.5 years, reminds me of that mental Pardew contract at Newcastle
posted on 5/1/23
stop copying us by ignoring your weakest position and buying one for the position you're already stacked in (just a lil joke before someone cries)
posted on 5/1/23
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
posted on 5/1/23
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
posted on 5/1/23
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£35m transfer fee for a crap player repeatedly sent on loan. How's that a win?
posted on 5/1/23
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he is brilliant he will be sent on loan - de Bruyne, Salah
posted on 5/1/23
Can't argue about de Bruyne but Salah looked like crap in the admittedly too few appearances he made for us.
posted on 5/1/23
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he is brilliant he will be sent on loan - de Bruyne, Salah
------------------------------------------------
Salah was NOT brilliant for us.
De Bryune was, certainly in terms of the potential being obvious, but he was sold - not loaned.
posted on 5/1/23
gfycat.com/completeuncomfortablefossa
This was Salah's Chelsea career
posted on 5/1/23
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£35m transfer fee for a crap player repeatedly sent on loan. How's that a win?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan fees are around £3-5m and then when 2 years are left sell him
posted on 5/1/23
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
posted on 5/1/23
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - FSG OUT (Get a move on!) - Free Pal... (U1108)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
interesting that Chelsea are giving out such long contracts.
For FFP and accounting purposes transfer fees are spread over the length of the contract so, for example, Forfana at £70m over 7 years = £10m a year on their Player amortisation. A standard 5 year contract would have increased that to a £14m annual cost. So if you apply that over a number of contracts your player amortisation rates could be a couple dozen million lower, which helps keep you in profit/reduce losses.
But its a risk as you now have that player for 7 years, whether they're a success or not and risk making a sizable loss or tied in to their wages if they do not succeed. But its a way of getting big deals done and spreading the cost for FFP purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's crap he will be sent on loan so win win for Chelsea and not player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£35m transfer fee for a crap player repeatedly sent on loan. How's that a win?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan fees are around £3-5m and then when 2 years are left sell him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they buy this play, loan him out sell him and make a loss or break even?
All i am saying is that it aint a win win. You will struggle to find an example of a player brought for such a lofty sum who was sold for big money having been loaned out over and over.
posted on 5/1/23
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They spent £170m on 3 defenders and have underwhelmed defensively.
posted on 5/1/23
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They spent £170m on 3 defenders and have underwhelmed defensively.
------------------------------------------------------
We've spent close to 300mil since the summer & gotten weaker everywhere. Why limit it to the defence?
posted on 5/1/23
Actually that's a lie. Thanks to Potter's trust in him, Kepa's gone from toilet duck to being sort of sh!t. That's a win
posted on 5/1/23
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Team struggling for goals spending hundreds of millions on defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense as they’ve lost all their goalscoring defenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They spent £170m on 3 defenders and have underwhelmed defensively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and score fewer because they can’t replace the goals they lost from Rudiger and Alonso.
I wasn’t even joking when I said in the summer Chelsea will have problems replacing their goals. Their defenders were their top scorers. They were set piece kings last season, even when they were supposedly battering teams when they were top.
posted on 5/1/23
Bit like Spurs this season actually, but not as shiiiiit and could defend.
posted on 5/1/23
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 27 minutes ago
Bit like Spurs this season actually, but not as shiiiiit and could defend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Feels like a decade ago now
Page 1 of 2