This is just Chelsea playing smart, they've adjusted the 7yr contract to not get caught up with FFP rule and in doing so add another 2yrs to it. They could still sell him for 80mill in two seasons time this got nothing to do with long term plan for Palmer.
@@RyanDogsYou don't get it. The fee can only be spread over 5 years, even if the contract is until 2050. Adding 2 years does not benefit the club in any way whatsoever.
It’s funny how “pundits” can turn Chelsea giving the clear Young Player of the Year a pay increase based on his exceptional performance, into a negative. The need to call these owners idiots at any and all occasions is laughable at this point. There have been some head scratchers over the last 2 years, but now it’s anything the club does. And it’s becoming too obvious and therefore losing its weight. This is when everyone should learn to make their own decisions and develop their own thoughts. Because the media’s need for clicks is very apparent in these moments. “Calling Chelsea’s owners clowns is easy time filler for a show, how do we spin them giving Cole Palmer a pay increase into a negative? Should we talk positively about them getting the Pedro Neto deal over the line quietly? No no no.. nothing positive.”
you would think resigning Palmer for 130k p/w is unbelievable business from Chelsea because that seems low in comparison to others performing at his level in the league.
Clubs should learn from Marcus Rashford that giving a player a bumper new deal from one good season can backfire horrifically. It's not like he was on a short deal in the first place. He can't go anywhere. It's just another amortisation trick (which Chelsea fans on this comment thread have even said).
@@ShaunLevett The only problem is, even after this pay increase, Marcus Rashford is still making more than double what Cole will be earning. Man United gave Rashford $300/k per week. Which is why no other clubs have sent them legitimate inquiries when rumors were circulating that they were open to letting him go.
@@JoshuaWilliamson-s1yAll it requires is a coaching spat, a coaching change, loss of form, injury etc. for things to go left between now and 2033. That's a big gamble after his first full season in a first-team. Mudryk is on a 8½-yr contract so moving him for any of the above reasons will be difficult
Great security for him financially. However, he has probably signed himself out of a move in his prime to another club. Kane learned that the hard way when he missed out on his dream move to City.
Vastly different mate. Chelsea has won 11 trophies in the last 14 years, including 2 Champions Leagues. Cole knows he’s the #1 star in a team with a trophy winning culture.
A standard 4-5 year contract protects their “asset” just as much and much less of a gamble. If he continues to improve and be their star man he’d command a hefty fee with just 2 years left anyway so you don’t need even more on top.
Simon keeps trying to tell us how clever the Chelsea leadership is because they rich. He assumes people with money correlates with IQ. There are countless examples of rich people effing up big time.
The hypocrisy of the media reeks! 26 year old Wan Bissaka has been given a 7 year contract at Westham. 26 year old Solanke a 6 year contract at Spurs! A year ago these talking heads were wondering what Chelsea were doing by giving long contracts now everyone is doing it!
Murphy has contradicted himself because he’s saying if you get Long contract You down tools well Palmer was already on a seven year contract and he was amazing last year. So that’s put that argument to bed.
Every player is different. So many good players aren't performing at Chelsea, so it proved his point. I know many truly world class players playing out of their skin when it's time for a new contract or make a move.
What a financial position for Cole! Basically can now invest big time with borrowed money in property with 9 years guaranteed income. He could be one of the richest players ever on retirement.
@@vPzWalkerxChelsea’s strategy is to offer relatively modest wages and then reward form with a wage increase as they have done in this case, if he keeps performing he will keep getting increases. I’m not saying he’ll be one of the richest like the OP is though.
@@TheBake1986Exactly 💯! Only people like Sterling and Chilwell are on crazy wages! The vast majority of the new signings earn under £100k a week, it's why the club aren't going for big mates that command high wages.
You would think Danny will be crying about Liverpool being rejected by another player (Zubimendi) despite claiming any player will want to sign for Liverpool. Caicedo?
Could be to prevent him being picked up down the line by a team like Man City or Real Madrid. The cost to buy out that contract would be insane. Not sure what his new salary is, even if hes on £200k p/w, not highest earner at the club, his wages alone are over £90m. But hes probably on more than that. Plus whatever the club would want on top of that, plus agent fees, blah blah and the rest. And by having the 9 years rather than a stupid high minimal release it prevents him running down the contract like Mbappe did and the club getting nothing for him.
Chelsea is moving toward more incentive-heavy contracts; you perform, you get paid more. Cole performed last year, and this new contract is the result. It's motivation to the other players to meet their contract incentives.
One explanation I believe may be that they wanted to increase the value of his buy out clause. He had a fantastic year and how long is it before Real Madrid come calling?
Palmer won’t even be at Chelsea in 2 years. All this contract has done is jack up his transfer value to probably £250m… These owners have ZERO interest in the on-field side of Chelsea. They’re not buying players to win trophies. It’s all about buying kids cheap and selling them on for a massive profit. That’s why all the home grown, pure profit players have been shipped out the door. You can’t tell me that we needed to flog Gallagher to comply with PSR when we still have Lukaku, Kepa, Sarr, etc all on the books who will never play for the club again. Get them off the wage bill! Stop loaning them and sell!
Ben foster said the same thing as danny and agree that a 2-3 year contract will keep the player hungry. 9 years and all ex pros say players wont be as hungry. Its a new concept, so give it 2 years. We will all know how its going.
Danny is ignoring that the contracts are incentive based at Chelsea. The new one for Palmer is going to increase his pay based on things like trophies won and goal involvements. So theres no need for Palmer to be fighting for his next contract. He now has an incredible amount of security and can just focus purely on his football with minimal need to be spending time negotiating new contracts which can be long and drawn out at times.
This doesn't make sense. No offence to Palmer, he has done very well so far but rewarding him with a large contract this early 13 or 14 months after he joined is not right and just shows that Bohely and Clearlake are not proper football owners. I'm not saying Palmet had done wrong and he probably didn't ask for it so this isn't a shot at him. But there is no justification to tying players on to 6 or 7 year contracts.
Lovely job Chelsea!!!!! greatest single talent in English football along with the opposite winger in Anthony Gordon, what a pity Southgate couldnt see it like the rest of us.
You may not like what Murphy said, Simon, but it’s a fact nonetheless. And that was my exact thought when the news broke. The player can move or get out of the contract whenever it suits him really. Might sound silly from the club’s point of view, but again, it’s the fact nonetheless. Like it or not, take it or leave it. 🥂
Danny lad. Lengthening a players contract reduces the rate at which a player's transfer value depreciates at. What this contract essentially means is Chelsea can get another 5 to 6 years amazing service from the player then get £150 million (if his form continues) for him when he's 28 and had his best years physically.
@@environm3ntalist549facts. That’s why a lot of these dudes that have 7 year deals at Chelsea want out now because they basically signed their careers away. We can find you a move but if it’s not we want your gonna have to sit and if you got 5 years left on your deal… BOY.
You cant depreciate the players value over 9 years. It was reduced to 7 recently. I dont have a dog in the fight and couldn’t care less … in fact why am i even leaving a message. As you were.
By increasing salaries in connection to performances will be enough motivation. He performed and was rewarded. The others know what to do to get the same
I really don't see how this is more under scrutiny than United offering Bruno a new deal, keeping him at the club until he'll be well past his best. He makes it impossible for us to play any other system, yet we're stuck with him on big money until he's 32/33
LOL. Simon is full of mischief. What he is NOT saying is he thinks they are using the American sports model where if the club believe its a good player they will sign him long term.
What no one is mentioning is his last year would be when he's 30, thus putting Chelsea in the best selling position (2 years left on contract when he's 28 years old aka his prime). I understand some of the criticism, but it is also pretty brilliant. Imagine if he turns into our next Hazard. Easy money.
If he actually turns into your next Hazard he would command a hefty transfer fee even regardless of if he had 1 year left. Tying him down for 9 years is just crazy and a big gamble when 4-5 would have been perfectly reasonable.
For god sakes guys, they are trying to lower the annual amortization of the contract, which is what hits the income statement and FFP rules. Its obvious.
Rashford on 350k a week, Bruno new deal highest paid on Utd team so that’s over 350k a week, that don’t get spoke about, chelsea extending Cole palmer and giving him a payrise which he absolutely deserves, is suddenly a bad idea, we had to up his wages after the season he’s just had, cos what message does that send to the players if they perform well they don’t get a monetary reward for it
It’s quite obvious, if palmer has another season like the last one and chelsea miss out on champions league football again then clubs are going to be circling like sharks for his signature.. Boehly has made sure it would cost upwards of 200mil to get him away from Chelsea.. there’s your logic 😌
it will take the other clubs years to catch up with what Chelsea are doing, not even the pundits can figure it out. In a couple years all other clubs will be doing exactly the same.
"for no reason" - Simon, you know very well that every industry has standardised economic life for assets that you recognise revenue over. I invest in video games, but I only amortise over 3 years because I know that I don't have a crystal ball... I COULD amortise over 10, but that would be stupid.
One of the smartest moves Daniel Levy ever made was making Kane sign a 6-year contract until he was 30. All of the risks Danny Murphy lists could have applied to Harry Kane.
@theach84 Anything over five years is very likely an instrument to defer wages. I absolutely accept it's a risk, but giving him a four year contract when he joined would have been riskier, looking at how well he's performed.
I think they realised they’ve ripped the heart and soul out of the club with the players they’ve let go so they’re planning on using Cole Palmer as the face of the club for the next decade and build around him
If Reece james managed to stay fit he would have been the face hence why he was pushed as club captain and our poster boy despite barely playing a game.
Murphy - is the sort of pundit that thinks he is educated because he sits on the same panel as a educated person (Simon) but then just gets shut down by Simon whenever he try to say something educated 😂
Chelsea are not offering business related contracts. Offering 9-year contracts doesn't benefit Chelsea in any way. It benefits the player but there's no guarantee the player will improve or maintain their hunger as money is guaranteed regardless of performance. Renew every 2-3 years. Unfortunately Palmer isn't a highly marketable player as he doesn't look like Beckham or have the fan mania like Beckham. His salary isn't super high which requires spreading over a longer period of time so this is just a bad contract for Chelsea unless they intend to offset taxes or other financial factors. Or they believe a longer contract equates to higher value. This is true when the athlete is Michael Jordan and if you extend the period of salary over a longer period you actually make more off the athlete each year in profit. However, Palmer is not Michael Jordan, nor does he have the global appeal of Michael Jordan, so I wait to see the true reason for the contract in the coming months and to unravel the business logic at the same time.
Here's a thing: How about we let Chelsea do what they bloody want??!! Chelsea are they only club that would get this much heat for locking up a clubs best player on a long term deal.
😂typical Talksport, moaning about Chelsea rewarding their best player and making sure they’re tied down for years to come to avoid them leaving for free and other top clubs coming in!
Everytime I hear jim speak all I can hear is goldbridge "let him speak simon" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is just Chelsea playing smart, they've adjusted the 7yr contract to not get caught up with FFP rule and in doing so add another 2yrs to it. They could still sell him for 80mill in two seasons time this got nothing to do with long term plan for Palmer.
Not following this at all, how's it get around FFP? The contract limit for amortisation is 5 years
@@ryanbarry34 they've just added another 2 to it
@@RyanDogsYou don't get it. The fee can only be spread over 5 years, even if the contract is until 2050. Adding 2 years does not benefit the club in any way whatsoever.
Risky tactic though, the players can literally have their career at 1 club and will get the wage no matter if they put effort in or not
If he's good enough, he will be playing. If Chelsea wants to get rid of him, there's no way they can get rid of him for £80m.
It’s funny how “pundits” can turn Chelsea giving the clear Young Player of the Year a pay increase based on his exceptional performance, into a negative.
The need to call these owners idiots at any and all occasions is laughable at this point. There have been some head scratchers over the last 2 years, but now it’s anything the club does. And it’s becoming too obvious and therefore losing its weight.
This is when everyone should learn to make their own decisions and develop their own thoughts. Because the media’s need for clicks is very apparent in these moments.
“Calling Chelsea’s owners clowns is easy time filler for a show, how do we spin them giving Cole Palmer a pay increase into a negative?
Should we talk positively about them getting the Pedro Neto deal over the line quietly? No no no.. nothing positive.”
Louder for those people in the back please
you would think resigning Palmer for 130k p/w is unbelievable business from Chelsea because that seems low in comparison to others performing at his level in the league.
Clubs should learn from Marcus Rashford that giving a player a bumper new deal from one good season can backfire horrifically. It's not like he was on a short deal in the first place. He can't go anywhere. It's just another amortisation trick (which Chelsea fans on this comment thread have even said).
@@ShaunLevett
The only problem is, even after this pay increase, Marcus Rashford is still making more than double what Cole will be earning.
Man United gave Rashford $300/k per week. Which is why no other clubs have sent them legitimate inquiries when rumors were circulating that they were open to letting him go.
@@JoshuaWilliamson-s1yAll it requires is a coaching spat, a coaching change, loss of form, injury etc. for things to go left between now and 2033. That's a big gamble after his first full season in a first-team. Mudryk is on a 8½-yr contract so moving him for any of the above reasons will be difficult
Great security for him financially. However, he has probably signed himself out of a move in his prime to another club. Kane learned that the hard way when he missed out on his dream move to City.
Vastly different mate. Chelsea has won 11 trophies in the last 14 years, including 2 Champions Leagues. Cole knows he’s the #1 star in a team with a trophy winning culture.
Stockpiling players for upcoming transfer embargo
Yep!
When I see Chelsea news I always laugh before reading😂😂😂
doesnt change the fact thrashford chilling till 2028 with 350k a week
It’s actually insulting to 90% of the world, all the other deals and advertisement included.
He's on 250k
For 4yrs not 9??????
What about the war in Yemen? That's right, just as relevant as your comment on a video about Chelsea. Try to focus a bit more next time.
Crazy and im a Manchester United fan. He an ok footballer not special 350k a week is ridiculous.
Chelsea are rewarding Cole Palmer but also protecting an asset, remember when Spurs did similar with Harry Kane?
they did that with harry kane when he had like 2 years left on contract palmer had 7 years on his old deal
A standard 4-5 year contract protects their “asset” just as much and much less of a gamble. If he continues to improve and be their star man he’d command a hefty fee with just 2 years left anyway so you don’t need even more on top.
His release clause would be huge, smart move.
Kane got stuck at spurs and Palmer will get stuck at Chelsea
Kane got 6 years at most not 9. Big difference
If Cole Palmer stays 9 years how many Chelsea managers will he see in that time span?
13
That was my estimate too.
Maybe thats the strategy. Get long term players so that the coach is also commited long term with these players
Simon keeps trying to tell us how clever the Chelsea leadership is because they rich. He assumes people with money correlates with IQ. There are countless examples of rich people effing up big time.
Micheal Carroll'
Simon is very objective, Danny is...
danny murphy making more sense then the rest of the panel as per usual
The hypocrisy of the media reeks! 26 year old Wan Bissaka has been given a 7 year contract at Westham. 26 year old Solanke a 6 year contract at Spurs! A year ago these talking heads were wondering what Chelsea were doing by giving long contracts now everyone is doing it!
no word on harry kanes 6 year contract before that either
And Chelsea 191 years combined. That’s insane!
Murphy has contradicted himself because he’s saying if you get Long contract You down tools well Palmer was already on a seven year contract and he was amazing last year. So that’s put that argument to bed.
Every player is different. So many good players aren't performing at Chelsea, so it proved his point. I know many truly world class players playing out of their skin when it's time for a new contract or make a move.
what kind of logic is that. it was palmers first season with them and he is a young player..
Shock Murphy slagging off Chelsea again 😂.
He’s right though. Although can’t believe Palmer has signed his career away either.
@@stretfordender11 good one 👍🏻. Are you Murphy’s brother?
@@Luke-ih2wt it’s weird how you’re so partisan you can’t think rationally
@stretfordender11 cry more mate 😂😢
@@chelseatillidie3264 it’s as if English isn’t your first language if you thought that response was relevant to anything said.
Yes he has done well but it is part of Chelsea's strategy to value their players as high as possible and a new improved contract does that
What a financial position for Cole! Basically can now invest big time with borrowed money in property with 9 years guaranteed income.
He could be one of the richest players ever on retirement.
Agree it’s a great position for him to be in but come on he won’t even be close to being the richest player ever when he retires.
He's on 130k p/w over 9 years? For someone his level that is not a lot, if he was signed for 250k on a 4+1 no one would say anything.
@@vPzWalkerxChelsea’s strategy is to offer relatively modest wages and then reward form with a wage increase as they have done in this case, if he keeps performing he will keep getting increases. I’m not saying he’ll be one of the richest like the OP is though.
@@TheBake1986Exactly 💯! Only people like Sterling and Chilwell are on crazy wages! The vast majority of the new signings earn under £100k a week, it's why the club aren't going for big mates that command high wages.
he'll never be richer than Martin Braithwaite
Palmer will be available on a bosman free transfer when he's 56.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
LFC fan here, I wish we done the same with TAA two season ago.
chelsea: "dont forget youre here forever" simspons fans will get that quote lol
I dont agree w them doing it. But there is logic. Amortizing the expense so as to make it easier to skirt PSR
Wrong. You can only do that over a max 5 year period.
You would think Danny will be crying about Liverpool being rejected by another player (Zubimendi) despite claiming any player will want to sign for Liverpool. Caicedo?
Liverpool dodged a massive bullet with the gazumping on Caidedo. 115m for a 50m player.
Danny Murphy is stunned....it would not take much
If anyone comes in for any of those players who are on long contracts then they will have to pay a lot more
This is sensible thinking compared to Rashford’s contract.
Could be to prevent him being picked up down the line by a team like Man City or Real Madrid. The cost to buy out that contract would be insane. Not sure what his new salary is, even if hes on £200k p/w, not highest earner at the club, his wages alone are over £90m. But hes probably on more than that. Plus whatever the club would want on top of that, plus agent fees, blah blah and the rest. And by having the 9 years rather than a stupid high minimal release it prevents him running down the contract like Mbappe did and the club getting nothing for him.
Ever thought maybe the agent and player asked for two more years lol
Chelsea is moving toward more incentive-heavy contracts; you perform, you get paid more. Cole performed last year, and this new contract is the result. It's motivation to the other players to meet their contract incentives.
One explanation I believe may be that they wanted to increase the value of his buy out clause. He had a fantastic year and how long is it before Real Madrid come calling?
Simon is clearly a hypocrite. If Manchester united did this he would have attacked
How can you call someone a hypocrite then proceed to speculate what he might say?
Even when it's not about Manchester United, yall wanna make it about yall
😊😊😊😊😊@@sdbrogs
You love yourself, you united fans, ffs😂
He is a hypocrite in your made-up scenario? Brilliant. 20 upvotes already for this nonsense...
Palmer won’t even be at Chelsea in 2 years. All this contract has done is jack up his transfer value to probably £250m… These owners have ZERO interest in the on-field side of Chelsea. They’re not buying players to win trophies. It’s all about buying kids cheap and selling them on for a massive profit. That’s why all the home grown, pure profit players have been shipped out the door.
You can’t tell me that we needed to flog Gallagher to comply with PSR when we still have Lukaku, Kepa, Sarr, etc all on the books who will never play for the club again. Get them off the wage bill! Stop loaning them and sell!
Mike Bamber the chairman at Brighton had some players on 10 year contracts back in 1980s .
Ben foster said the same thing as danny and agree that a 2-3 year contract will keep the player hungry. 9 years and all ex pros say players wont be as hungry.
Its a new concept, so give it 2 years. We will all know how its going.
Yeah listen to Danny Murphy the finance guy. Nothing wrong with a 9 year deal. It's excellent business for the young guy. Football is a business.
Danny said that it was good business for palmer. What he said was it was bad for chelsea
@@John...44... what I said was tongue and cheek - but I agree with Danny.
Danny is ignoring that the contracts are incentive based at Chelsea. The new one for Palmer is going to increase his pay based on things like trophies won and goal involvements. So theres no need for Palmer to be fighting for his next contract. He now has an incredible amount of security and can just focus purely on his football with minimal need to be spending time negotiating new contracts which can be long and drawn out at times.
Does it allow them to increase the value which then allows them to amortise the write off at a higher level ?
Why not?
Wages are heavily incentivised at my club ❤
This doesn't make sense. No offence to Palmer, he has done very well so far but rewarding him with a large contract this early 13 or 14 months after he joined is not right and just shows that Bohely and Clearlake are not proper football owners. I'm not saying Palmet had done wrong and he probably didn't ask for it so this isn't a shot at him. But there is no justification to tying players on to 6 or 7 year contracts.
Danny Murphy is Stunned is all you needed to say in that headline.
Lovely job Chelsea!!!!! greatest single talent in English football along with the opposite winger in Anthony Gordon, what a pity Southgate couldnt see it like the rest of us.
You may not like what Murphy said, Simon, but it’s a fact nonetheless. And that was my exact thought when the news broke. The player can move or get out of the contract whenever it suits him really.
Might sound silly from the club’s point of view, but again, it’s the fact nonetheless. Like it or not, take it or leave it. 🥂
Danny lad. Lengthening a players contract reduces the rate at which a player's transfer value depreciates at. What this contract essentially means is Chelsea can get another 5 to 6 years amazing service from the player then get £150 million (if his form continues) for him when he's 28 and had his best years physically.
Yes but the risk is he gets injured and is never the same but can sit there for 9 years as an unsalable asset. Lots can happen over that period.
@@environm3ntalist549facts. That’s why a lot of these dudes that have 7 year deals at Chelsea want out now because they basically signed their careers away. We can find you a move but if it’s not we want your gonna have to sit and if you got 5 years left on your deal… BOY.
Lovejoy Lad, that’s only one scenario. You seem to have missed the several other scenarios that would be ultimately be negative for the club.
You cant depreciate the players value over 9 years. It was reduced to 7 recently. I dont have a dog in the fight and couldn’t care less … in fact why am i even leaving a message.
As you were.
It’s a motivation killer as well having such a long contract
By increasing salaries in connection to performances will be enough motivation. He performed and was rewarded. The others know what to do to get the same
I really don't see how this is more under scrutiny than United offering Bruno a new deal, keeping him at the club until he'll be well past his best. He makes it impossible for us to play any other system, yet we're stuck with him on big money until he's 32/33
LOL. Simon is full of mischief. What he is NOT saying is he thinks they are using the American sports model where if the club believe its a good player they will sign him long term.
You would say they are protecting their investment, but it’s a long contract fair play to palmer
How odd.. Last night bent and goldstein said the opposite when a caller rang in
What no one is mentioning is his last year would be when he's 30, thus putting Chelsea in the best selling position (2 years left on contract when he's 28 years old aka his prime). I understand some of the criticism, but it is also pretty brilliant. Imagine if he turns into our next Hazard. Easy money.
If he actually turns into your next Hazard he would command a hefty transfer fee even regardless of if he had 1 year left. Tying him down for 9 years is just crazy and a big gamble when 4-5 would have been perfectly reasonable.
"Bohley has money, for that reason I'll not apply any negative comments to him" - Simon Jordan
nah cole palmer is like the one player I have no fear of losing his appetite, he wants to win
the one thing you can say about the boehly ownership of chelsea is that they testing the limits making people think
That further dilutes his PSR cost
How fun it would be if the longest contract length was 18 months. Now you would see some effort
Accountants trying to balance the books as the owners aren't very good at running a football club.
Danny murphy isnt a good enough pundit he hates chelsea😂
I think it's win win for both the player and the club 🤷
It’s pretty obvious. If a player wants more money, the club want something in return. I.e. more years.
For god sakes guys, they are trying to lower the annual amortization of the contract, which is what hits the income statement and FFP rules. Its obvious.
He was making 70k a week as one of the best player in epl so there is nothing wrong giving him and extension and some more money
It's not rocket size. Chelsea have have the upper hand when another team comes calling.
This shouldn't be allowed. Club gets round ffp with long contracts
There's obviously something we don't know behind the scenes.
Not obviously at all
ive heard a rumour hes got a photo of Boehly with a sheep.
Rashford on 350k a week, Bruno new deal highest paid on Utd team so that’s over 350k a week, that don’t get spoke about, chelsea extending Cole palmer and giving him a payrise which he absolutely deserves, is suddenly a bad idea, we had to up his wages after the season he’s just had, cos what message does that send to the players if they perform well they don’t get a monetary reward for it
Rashford is a United youth and they crb afford it. Not the same thing.
If you throw enough mud at a wall it sticks. That’s only how Clearlake will win trophies!!
What about lukaku still on Chelsea books
It’s quite obvious, if palmer has another season like the last one and chelsea miss out on champions league football again then clubs are going to be circling like sharks for his signature.. Boehly has made sure it would cost upwards of 200mil to get him away from Chelsea.. there’s your logic 😌
it will take the other clubs years to catch up with what Chelsea are doing, not even the pundits can figure it out. In a couple years all other clubs will be doing exactly the same.
It's just typical Chelsea, they gave Maresca a 5 year contract FFS.
9 year contract that means if he gets injured he will get that money.incredible
"for no reason" - Simon, you know very well that every industry has standardised economic life for assets that you recognise revenue over. I invest in video games, but I only amortise over 3 years because I know that I don't have a crystal ball... I COULD amortise over 10, but that would be stupid.
One of the smartest moves Daniel Levy ever made was making Kane sign a 6-year contract until he was 30.
All of the risks Danny Murphy lists could have applied to Harry Kane.
Palmers had one good season though.
They did apply to Kane. We call them 'risks' for a reason - there's risk
That is 6 years not 9. Big difference and for a player who has proved less than Kane.
@theach84 Anything over five years is very likely an instrument to defer wages.
I absolutely accept it's a risk, but giving him a four year contract when he joined would have been riskier, looking at how well he's performed.
It's called amortization
Now if the Chelsea project fails palmer could be the new Kane?
About time the clubs extended contracts. Players need it but agents must be shitting themselves
9 years left on his contract, imagine he falls out of favour in 18 months and just sits the rest of his contract out on the bench lol
Imagine if he doesn’t - imagine if he performs like he did last season for the next nine years ?
Star boy on a prison contract
I love it
Simon will never criticise Spurs or Chelsea but can’t wait to criticise West Ham. Wonder why??
Danny had few beers before he come on 😂😂😂
"its baffling"
What? That if other teams come sniffinf round now they'll have to pay the big bucks?
He will want more in 3-4 years if he plays in the first team.
I think they realised they’ve ripped the heart and soul out of the club with the players they’ve let go so they’re planning on using Cole Palmer as the face of the club for the next decade and build around him
If Reece james managed to stay fit he would have been the face hence why he was pushed as club captain and our poster boy despite barely playing a game.
Boehly will try and sell in time for a huge profit in time, longer contract he's on the higher prized asset he is when it comes to selling him.
Supporters of other clubs just annoyed an amazing talent wants to play for Chelsea. Sour grapes.
Nonsense. If United put 100m on the table he will put in a transfer request.
@@Zion66666 HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
@@London666_UK he has posters of Giggs and Scholes on his all still. Once a red always a red.
@@London666_UK. Course he would pal. He’s a red is Cole. 🔴⚪️⚫️
Murphy - is the sort of pundit that thinks he is educated because he sits on the same panel as a educated person (Simon) but then just gets shut down by Simon whenever he try to say something educated 😂
I like Simon. But Terry wanted a 10 year contract at Chelsea. He asked for it. Didnt get it.
desrved at least that mr chelsea shame about the penalty miss what a servant
@@jackmorgan2163 not saying he didn't. Just pointing out that he used Terry as a character who wouldn't want such a contract. He objectively did.
Chelsea are not offering business related contracts. Offering 9-year contracts doesn't benefit Chelsea in any way. It benefits the player but there's no guarantee the player will improve or maintain their hunger as money is guaranteed regardless of performance. Renew every 2-3 years. Unfortunately Palmer isn't a highly marketable player as he doesn't look like Beckham or have the fan mania like Beckham. His salary isn't super high which requires spreading over a longer period of time so this is just a bad contract for Chelsea unless they intend to offset taxes or other financial factors. Or they believe a longer contract equates to higher value. This is true when the athlete is Michael Jordan and if you extend the period of salary over a longer period you actually make more off the athlete each year in profit. However, Palmer is not Michael Jordan, nor does he have the global appeal of Michael Jordan, so I wait to see the true reason for the contract in the coming months and to unravel the business logic at the same time.
Didn’t Chelsea have a player can’t re bear the name who was on £40 grand never played many games but just sat out his contract
Winston Bogarde
Chelsea, have 32. (thirty two) players, on over £1million/year...
Here's a thing: How about we let Chelsea do what they bloody want??!!
Chelsea are they only club that would get this much heat for locking up a clubs best player on a long term deal.
Didn't
We know something you guys are unaware of.
Clearlake are clueless 😂😂😂😂😂
The extension is to increase his wages! Do people like Murphy know anything about football outside of kicking it about?!
I don't normally agree with Danny Murphy but today he was spot on 2000% Like the explanation for the wan bissaka deal
Chelsea can spend a billion cos of Putin oil money investment...thats fair Prem init FFS
Employment Law and freedom of movement may support Danny's position - contract or not!
😂typical Talksport, moaning about Chelsea rewarding their best player and making sure they’re tied down for years to come to avoid them leaving for free and other top clubs coming in!
He has no control over his whole football career. Chelsea own his career
Clubs sell players all the time who are under contract. Even when they dont want to leave. Wtf is simon talking about? Danny is right.
No club can sell a player if they refuse to leave.
Palmer will be at United within 3/4 years.
I’m a blue and thought he would of been there this year.
You United fans called him pen merchant majority of the season now begging for him 😂😂
@@ET.1506 not begging - I think he’s pretty good - but I just think it’s inevitable he’ll move.