The club had to change because the rules changed. I like the incentivised contracts because they all earn good base money. Now they have to start treating the players like human beings not just commodities. They are not robots yet…
its good to have incentive based contracts and thats how contracts should be structured.... however if you think spending 1.5bn in 3 years while overpaying for most of the players and signing a large number of players even on mid - lowish wages is sustainable then you are wrong. It all adds up. Signing avg - poor players will make you lose money overall even though you might break even on the book cost. Having 30-35 players on books will lead to a combined wage bill that will still be substantial. Instead of spending (fee + wages) on average players like KDH, Viega, Disasi, Jorgenson, Casadei, Tosin, Neto, Noni, Mudryk, Felix sign 2-3 ceiling raisers even if you have to pay them a higher wage. The contract can still be structured to include incentives. Its your ceiling raisers that get you wins and top of table finishes... which helps get CL and helps attract more sponsors and better commercial deals. We still dont have a FOS sponsor and positive toxicity merchants back it as its some sort of a grand strategy. We never had sponsor issues under previous regime and were able to get blue chip sponsors. That we have struggled to get a sponsor 2 years in a row says quite a bit about the project with no one willing to pay even what 'Three' paid us.
Great piece The Score. How funny it is that no one was negative about the length of Holland‘s contract (not to mention the value of it) but have been constantly stating how stupid Chelsea are with the contracts lengths they have been giving players that have come into the club over the past 2/3 years. They also never mention the financial benefits of a lower salary plus performance basis that has been created. #It’sNotLikeJournalistsToGiveAnUnbalancedView.
Key is that at least in the case of Liverpool and now us, to an extent, these are people familiar with working in the economic system of baseball. For those who don't know, Major League Baseball contracts are fully guaranteed, so if you sign a contract for 10 years, $700 million, before you die, you will expect to see every single penny of that contract whether you see out the full 10 years or not (barring various repayment structure clauses, opt outs, renegotiations, etc.)
That means that with superstar players, if they start to underperform their value towards the back half of that contract, it makes them virtually impossible to move without serious financial consequences.
It's why you saw with Juan Soto's contract that there's essentially an opt-out after 4 years for both the player and the team if it doesn't work out. Otherwise, they'd be staring at owing him $51 million a year for 15 years.
I think some teams are looking at football contracts in a similar way. On the surface, Haaland is being paid commensurate with his peers at the top of world football, but if in 5 years, his production drops off and he's not performing to that level, you're stuck with a player that you cannot move because no one will take that contract.
Justin, that’s my point. I think I’m reading from what you say that you agree with my comment. Whilst Chelsea have given similar length contracts, they have done it on more financial sensible basis with the players on a lower base salary and performance related bonuses.The Score’s whole article under lines this. I think it goes beyond Liverpool and Chelsea however. Major clubs like Arsenal, Manchester United, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle et cetera all have financially aware owners who know how to play the game I will follow some of the traits of VCs.
The big thing is that for all the trophies and success Abramovich's ownership brought to the club, we were well-known for paying extremely high wages and extremely high agent's fees in order to tempt players that would have otherwise gone to places like Real Madrid, Barcelona, PSG, and Bayern for less than we paid on prestige alone.
The current ownership tried to continue on with that kind of philosophy and they found out it didn't work so well. They inherited Lukaku, brought in Koulibaly and Sterling, and found out that method didn't work for them. It took them years to move on Lukaku because of his wages, got lucky that the Saudis wanted Koulibaly, and are currently trying to get Sterling completely off the books to anyone who would take them.
To be honest, though, this wasn't a new problem. We had similar problems moving players that we paid big wages to and couldn't move. See: Bakayoko, Drinkwater, and Batshuayi.
The current model is much more sustainable, particularly as it's going to be many years until our matchday revenues can match those competing at the top. I'll be shocked if the stadium situation even has a plan by 2030, which means our matchday revenues place us mid-table in the PL by that metric.
I acknowledge that and that’s why he’s being paid £500,000 a week. Doesn’t need to have a 9.5 year contract is what the journalist were saying about Palmer.
Yay no trophies and struggling to qualify for the Champions League we're in such a great position!
The club had to change because the rules changed. I like the incentivised contracts because they all earn good base money. Now they have to start treating the players like human beings not just commodities. They are not robots yet…
its good to have incentive based contracts and thats how contracts should be structured.... however if you think spending 1.5bn in 3 years while overpaying for most of the players and signing a large number of players even on mid - lowish wages is sustainable then you are wrong. It all adds up. Signing avg - poor players will make you lose money overall even though you might break even on the book cost. Having 30-35 players on books will lead to a combined wage bill that will still be substantial. Instead of spending (fee + wages) on average players like KDH, Viega, Disasi, Jorgenson, Casadei, Tosin, Neto, Noni, Mudryk, Felix sign 2-3 ceiling raisers even if you have to pay them a higher wage. The contract can still be structured to include incentives. Its your ceiling raisers that get you wins and top of table finishes... which helps get CL and helps attract more sponsors and better commercial deals. We still dont have a FOS sponsor and positive toxicity merchants back it as its some sort of a grand strategy. We never had sponsor issues under previous regime and were able to get blue chip sponsors. That we have struggled to get a sponsor 2 years in a row says quite a bit about the project with no one willing to pay even what 'Three' paid us.
Fantastic article with some perspective. Although in the short term it seems to be messy re: signings (or lack of).
There is some perspective and hope if we can get CL football!
Great piece The Score. How funny it is that no one was negative about the length of Holland‘s contract (not to mention the value of it) but have been constantly stating how stupid Chelsea are with the contracts lengths they have been giving players that have come into the club over the past 2/3 years. They also never mention the financial benefits of a lower salary plus performance basis that has been created. #It’sNotLikeJournalistsToGiveAnUnbalancedView.
Key is that at least in the case of Liverpool and now us, to an extent, these are people familiar with working in the economic system of baseball. For those who don't know, Major League Baseball contracts are fully guaranteed, so if you sign a contract for 10 years, $700 million, before you die, you will expect to see every single penny of that contract whether you see out the full 10 years or not (barring various repayment structure clauses, opt outs, renegotiations, etc.)
That means that with superstar players, if they start to underperform their value towards the back half of that contract, it makes them virtually impossible to move without serious financial consequences.
It's why you saw with Juan Soto's contract that there's essentially an opt-out after 4 years for both the player and the team if it doesn't work out. Otherwise, they'd be staring at owing him $51 million a year for 15 years.
I think some teams are looking at football contracts in a similar way. On the surface, Haaland is being paid commensurate with his peers at the top of world football, but if in 5 years, his production drops off and he's not performing to that level, you're stuck with a player that you cannot move because no one will take that contract.
Justin, that’s my point. I think I’m reading from what you say that you agree with my comment. Whilst Chelsea have given similar length contracts, they have done it on more financial sensible basis with the players on a lower base salary and performance related bonuses.The Score’s whole article under lines this. I think it goes beyond Liverpool and Chelsea however. Major clubs like Arsenal, Manchester United, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle et cetera all have financially aware owners who know how to play the game I will follow some of the traits of VCs.
The big thing is that for all the trophies and success Abramovich's ownership brought to the club, we were well-known for paying extremely high wages and extremely high agent's fees in order to tempt players that would have otherwise gone to places like Real Madrid, Barcelona, PSG, and Bayern for less than we paid on prestige alone.
The current ownership tried to continue on with that kind of philosophy and they found out it didn't work so well. They inherited Lukaku, brought in Koulibaly and Sterling, and found out that method didn't work for them. It took them years to move on Lukaku because of his wages, got lucky that the Saudis wanted Koulibaly, and are currently trying to get Sterling completely off the books to anyone who would take them.
To be honest, though, this wasn't a new problem. We had similar problems moving players that we paid big wages to and couldn't move. See: Bakayoko, Drinkwater, and Batshuayi.
The current model is much more sustainable, particularly as it's going to be many years until our matchday revenues can match those competing at the top. I'll be shocked if the stadium situation even has a plan by 2030, which means our matchday revenues place us mid-table in the PL by that metric.
Probably because Haaland is the best striker in the world mate
I acknowledge that and that’s why he’s being paid £500,000 a week. Doesn’t need to have a 9.5 year contract is what the journalist were saying about Palmer.