Daniel Sturridge

[Sheva. 5,373]

Where is all these crap about him demanding more wages coming from?

[termninja 5,290]

Where is all these crap about him demanding more wages coming from?

A Chelsea loving journo's arse

[zolayes 14,489]

Sturridge is on 65k a week and how do you know he wants 80-100k? Welbeck wants the same as Sturridge is on. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill if Sturridge gets higher wages he is on. It would not be on the level Terry or Lampard are on and more likely where Cahill is, and he is more entitled to that than Cahill

We have done well in lowering the wage bill in some places. Our best players are all on lower wages than usual. Romeu is on 20k, Ramires, Ivanovic and Luiz all on 40-60k, Sturridge and Mata on 65k. What we've done wrong is giving long term high pay contracts to 31 and 32 year old Drogbas and Lampards and just one word - Torres.

I was quoting The Times ...where did you get all your information on wages from?

[CHOULO19 24,332]

If you are talking about Cahill, Kostas in the Cahill thread explained this nicely.

When you buy a player for free or with little time left in his contract you usally end up paying more in wages.

Honestly I would've rather paid 10m for Cahil and offered him 50-60k than the deal we made. His wage will factor in our financial balance when FFP rules come into action thus limiting the money we can spend in the market when that time comes.

[Sheva. 5,373]

A Chelsea loving journo's arse

Right, and as usual some people are taking it as fact.... smh.

[Peace. 4,352]

Honestly I would've rather paid 10m for Cahil and offered him 50-60k than the deal we made. His wage will factor in our financial balance when FFP rules come into action thus limiting the money we can spend in the market when that time comes.

You talk some sense here !

The money we use for the transfer fees and the money we use to pay players' wages are two different things and will have two different repercussions on the club. So we shouldn't say we can pay Cahill £80k-a-week because we've only paid him £7m.

Indeed, we spend straight away the amount of money we have to pay for a player, and thus, when the FFP will be on, this money spent on the fee will have strictly no effect on our financial wealth. So we can splurge £200m now without being able to refund the debt it will leave to us, it doesn't matter for the forthcoming FFP. But, we don't pay the wages we have to right now, no, we pay them each and every weeks. Therefore, the wage we agree to give a player now, will have repercussions in the four years to come, or even more.

Had we bought him in the summer for £15 millions (as Coyle wanted) and thus gave him a wage of £50k-a-week, it would have been a 5,5 years deal valued at £28m. The deal we've made is actually valued at £30m. If we look at the figures, it is more or less the same. But actually no. The FFP will limit us to X millions pounds to give for the wages. So basically, it is when we will try to buy a player that we will see that those £30k-a-week of difference will trouble us. Hence, as you I would have prefered to buy him for £10m+

[Madmax 9,219]

[Kostas 1,468]

Honestly I would've rather paid 10m for Cahil and offered him 50-60k than the deal we made. His wage will factor in our financial balance when FFP rules come into action thus limiting the money we can spend in the market when that time comes.

You talk some sense here !

The money we use for the transfer fees and the money we use to pay players' wages are two different things and will have two different repercussions on the club. So we shouldn't say we can pay Cahill £80k-a-week because we've only paid him £7m.

Indeed, we spend straight away the amount of money we have to pay for a player, and thus, when the FFP will be on, this money spent on the fee will have strictly no effect on our financial wealth. So we can splurge £200m now without being able to refund the debt it will leave to us, it doesn't matter for the forthcoming FFP. But, we don't pay the wages we have to right now, no, we pay them each and every weeks. Therefore, the wage we agree to give a player now, will have repercussions in the four years to come, or even more.

Had we bought him in the summer for £15 millions (as Coyle wanted) and thus gave him a wage of £50k-a-week, it would have been a 5,5 years deal valued at £28m. The deal we've made is actually valued at £30m. If we look at the figures, it is more or less the same. But actually no. The FFP will limit us to X millions pounds to give for the wages. So basically, it is when we will try to buy a player that we will see that those £30k-a-week of difference will trouble us. Hence, as you I would have prefered to buy him for £10m+

You two are IMHO some of the best posters around here but you couldn't be more wrong on this account.

First of all since the club operates at a loss the current financial state is already under FFP's monitoring so UEFA's FFP is already on.

Second, there's no such thing as speding money straight away, at least not in the yearly books and those are what FFP is about.

Transfer fees are amortized which means the cost is spread over the length of the contract. Amortization isn't optional and we can't just ignore it for the sake of making the Cahill deal look worse than it really is. In fact UEFA's Head of Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play said:

"All clubs must amortise all transfer fees."

Thirdly, while the wage-to-turnover ratio is important and is usually the first thing to look into if you are able to think beyond transfer fees, UEFA has not given any specific limit for the ratio therefore the wagebill and amortized transfer fees are going to have the exact same effect on not only UEFA's break-even calculation but also the club's accounts.

In Cahill's case the main thing that UEFA's and Chelsea's accountants care about is that with his wages estimated to be 4.6m a year and his annual amortazation being 1.4m his final yearly burden on Chelsea's books will be roughly 6m.

[Badboy 1,526]

I think we'd win every competition available if we had a pure commission based system with no basics for our forwards lol NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN THOUGH. The forwards can have 70k for a goal and 50k for an assist ! One of them would win the golden boot .

[Madmax 9,219]

Thirdly, while the wage-to-turnover ratio is important and is usually the first thing to look into if you are able to think beyond transfer fees, UEFA has not given any specific limit for the ratio

They have. The recommended upper ceiling for wages-to-turnover is 70%.

[robdog 2,084]

Nice graphic there. The only thing I question is the assists listed. I do believe both Torres & DD have more than what is listed. Hell, that Over-head Volley attempt by El Nino should be listed as an assist. W/out that effort hitting the crossbar Lamps would have not scored. Also in my IMHO Danny Boy is a bit more selfish than both El Nino & DD. I am not saying that is a bad thing for a striker, but Danny Boy is in form & his confidence level is high @ the moment. Capello would be stupid not the include Danny Boy on England's Roster this summer.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Second, there's no such thing as speding money straight away, at least not in the yearly books and those are what FFP is about.

Transfer fees are amortized which means the cost is spread over the length of the contract. Amortization isn't optional and we can't just ignore it for the sake of making the Cahill deal look worse than it really is. In fact UEFA's Head of Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play said:

I had no idea that transfer fees are amortized! In that case you are absolutely right. Thank you for the infromation.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Utter cack today

[skeeo 37]

Really lost any form now after injuries etc

[Term-X 7,891]

^ Sturridge making his claim to take the penalty, Mata dismissing him.

I don't recall seeing this, clearly they were showing replays of the decision at the time..