5+ Year Contracts

[djmartincape]

When will we see an update to include longer contracts like Chelsea have just been doing?

Enzo just signed an 8.5 year contract!!!!

[Iggy Hassan]

I dare say that will happen in FM24. 

[fc.cadoni]

That was a loophole where UEFA it’s gonna close it. 

[DarJ]

49 minutes ago, fc.cadoni said:

That was a loophole where UEFA it’s gonna close it. 

to add to that, the reason Chelsea is doing that is to be able to spread the cost of the transfer during those years so they can comply with FFP but you don't have that problem in FM

[Ghost4928]

9 hours ago, fc.cadoni said:

That was a loophole where UEFA it’s gonna close it. 

Assuming they can close it.

The 'loophole' (if you want to describe it that way) is relevant to UK working laws, so unless UEFA has the power to override UK laws, then I find it hard to see how UEFA can achieve this.

Within UEFA rules, it already states that contracts can be no longer than 5 years, unless relevant country laws says otherwise. As far as I'm aware, UK laws don't impose a max number of years for a contract, so therefore, Chelsea can offer as long of a contract as they want.

[Jackk!]

48 minutes ago, Ghost4928 said:

Assuming they can close it.

The 'loophole' (if you want to describe it that way) is relevant to UK working laws, so unless UEFA has the power to override UK laws, then I find it hard to see how UEFA can achieve this.

Within UEFA rules, it already states that contracts can be no longer than 5 years, unless relevant country laws says otherwise. As far as I'm aware, UK laws don't impose a max number of years for a contract, so therefore, Chelsea can offer as long of a contract as they want.

A longer contract increases Chelsea's risk at a certain point.

UEFA's plan is to add a rule within FFP that will only allow transfer fees to be spread over 5 years for accounting purposes. So if you offer an 8 year contract, the transfer fee can only be spread over the first 5 years for FFP. The last 3 will have £0 transfer value attributed in the accounts. 

Enzo as an example, if he flops, Chelsea are tied into his wages for 8+ years anyway. 

[Ghost4928]

8 hours ago, Jackk! said:

A longer contract increases Chelsea's risk at a certain point.

UEFA's plan is to add a rule within FFP that will only allow transfer fees to be spread over 5 years for accounting purposes. So if you offer an 8 year contract, the transfer fee can only be spread over the first 5 years for FFP. The last 3 will have £0 transfer value attributed in the accounts. 

Enzo as an example, if he flops, Chelsea are tied into his wages for 8+ years anyway. 

I see.

Don't really pay attention to UEFA and what they get up to these days.

[phnompenhandy]

8 hours ago, Jackk! said:

A longer contract increases Chelsea's risk at a certain point.

UEFA's plan is to add a rule within FFP that will only allow transfer fees to be spread over 5 years for accounting purposes. So if you offer an 8 year contract, the transfer fee can only be spread over the first 5 years for FFP. The last 3 will have £0 transfer value attributed in the accounts. 

Enzo as an example, if he flops, Chelsea are tied into his wages for 8+ years anyway. 

It's not just that - Chelsea's financial model is predicated on there being no pandemic, war, global economic downturn etc in the next 8.5 years. That's an extremely dubious assumption. However, it's something SI can't factor into this game and if it became the norm to manipulate the transfer market like that in FM24, it would make a nonsense of the game, particularly as UEFA will in all likelihood have closed the exploit by then.

[Ghost4928]

2 minutes ago, phnompenhandy said:

It's not just that - Chelsea's financial model is predicated on there being no pandemic, war, global economic downturn etc in the next 8.5 years. That's an extremely dubious assumption. However, it's something SI can't factor into this game and if it became the norm to manipulate the transfer market like that in FM24, it would make a nonsense of the game, particularly as UEFA will in all likelihood have closed the exploit by then.

Well, Boehly would need to hope that Mike Minihan's predication of a war with China in 2025 is false then.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Ghost4928

[Garygooner666]

UEFA cannot change the UK labour laws but they can change the wording within their own guidelines to limit the maximum length to say 5 years for FFP purposes negating the advantages.

As pointed out by others it does run the risk of a player failing and the club being stuck with them on a long contract.

[fc.cadoni]

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/uefa-enforce-five-year-limit-chelsea-ffp-swerving-long-term-contracts/blt310cd045e9d55472

[jcp1417]

On 04/02/2023 at 02:50, phnompenhandy said:

It's not just that - Chelsea's financial model is predicated on there being no pandemic, war, global economic downturn etc in the next 8.5 years. That's an extremely dubious assumption. However, it's something SI can't factor into this game and if it became the norm to manipulate the transfer market like that in FM24, it would make a nonsense of the game, particularly as UEFA will in all likelihood have closed the exploit by then.

If there is another pandemic lockdown in the next 8 years, society will crumble and it will not matter. 

[iAlwaysWin]

On 04/02/2023 at 01:07, Jackk! said:

A longer contract increases Chelsea's risk at a certain point.

UEFA's plan is to add a rule within FFP that will only allow transfer fees to be spread over 5 years for accounting purposes. So if you offer an 8 year contract, the transfer fee can only be spread over the first 5 years for FFP. The last 3 will have £0 transfer value attributed in the accounts. 

Enzo as an example, if he flops, Chelsea are tied into his wages for 8+ years anyway. 

Not really cause they can just sell him at worst case scenario at a loss. The fantastic talent that he is even if he flops at chelsea am sure someone will want him at a decent transfer fee.

[Jackk!]

 

12 hours ago, iAlwaysWin said:

Not really cause they can just sell him at worst case scenario at a loss. The fantastic talent that he is even if he flops at chelsea am sure someone will want him at a decent transfer fee.

Well the loss itself is a risk. 

Sure they could sell him in 3 years time for £5m to someone, but Chelsea might not be in a position to afford to book that loss. They're also liable for his wages for the period. So definitely still a risk. 

There will also be an annual loyalty payment - but that will become liable upon the termination of his contract and that's another cost to Chelsea.

[iAlwaysWin]

5 hours ago, Jackk! said:

 

Well the loss itself is a risk. 

Sure they could sell him in 3 years time for £5m to someone, but Chelsea might not be in a position to afford to book that loss. They're also liable for his wages for the period. So definitely still a risk. 

There will also be an annual loyalty payment - but that will become liable upon the termination of his contract and that's another cost to Chelsea.

Lol 5 MILLION for enzo in 3 years time, behave! maybe in some alternate reality.