It's not though, there's about a 5 year difference in age between the bundles of cash wasted on Tommy Tippett's signings, in the Summer and Potters this January.
No excuses for fluffing their lines at this years panto then, assuming he’s still there at Xmas
Seems like a tough ask with the likes of City and Newcastle competing.
What's the play there? How does a distorted market make them money?
Suppose when they’re selling in a few years prices are higher. Wished I’d paid more attention now!
No - although I would like to take Colwill - but I think Chelsea will have another problem when it comes to having a clear out, apart from other PL teams happy not to help them out, will be players on Chelsea wages quite happy to sit out their contracts getting rich rather than take a pay cut.
The Athletic article did say a lot of the new contracts they’ve given out have a lower basic pay (thought probably still more than ours) and appearance/performance bonuses to try and stop this very issue
I don't think they push up prices on their own. Other teams (Madrid, City, Barca, PSG) have been paying big money for years - if Chelsea alone go above them, they should run into trouble when their squad is full, and then they'll have players on huge salaries that are Seems like an odd strategy. It worked in Abramovich's time because there was no minted City and Newcastle to compete, so Chelsea could dominate. Not sure they can now.
Probably more than ours? I'm amazed that the top players would take contracts that don't involve huge basic salaries. Just daft when they can be dropped and replaced.
yeah I assume the basic is huge and way more than ours but less than might be expected for such big fee signings. So maybe 150k a week instead of 250k with lots matchday and performance bonuses. Should have paid more attention to the article but supposedly it’s to help with the FFP and keeping wages lower for players that sit in bench/get loaned out.
