SENTINELCELTS

Morning,all.

Harking back briefly to the transfer window,the last day of which is today,there hasn’t been a lot of action outside of Glasgow. Ryan Porteous moved to Watford for half a million,or about 10% of what was being discussed in the summer when we were allegedly after him,and the huns have signed a discard from Norwich and are hoping for one more. 

Ange has been his usual busy self with four signings to date,the same number as a year ago. Of course,it is too early to pass judgement on them,but his signing record stands up very well to serious scrutiny. I’m happy enough with that.

Down south is a different matter. A lot of the action is from clubs desperate to steer clear of relegation,like Leeds and Wolves who have spent nearly £100m on five players between them. Bournemouth and West Ham have also dipped their toes,while at the other end,Newcastle too have been busy signing Gordon from Everton for £40m. Liverpool went for Gakpo from PSV for £40m while Man Utd took a Dutch striker on a six month loan. 

But most of the inward action has been centred in London. Spurs are always on the lookout,even as every club knows that Levy will chisel them out of every brass farthing. Arsenal are looking at Caicedo from Brighton,having already forked out on his colleague,Trossard. 

Once again though,most of the spending has been by Chelsea. You might have thought those days were over when Abramovich left the building,but the new owner knocked that idea on the head with a £200+ million spend in the summer. Not enough for him,he spent £9m a wages on a six month loan deal for Felix,€100m for Mudryk-what a bloody player he is!-and roughly the same or more on Fofana,Badasile and Dantos. With plans for another £200m on Caicedo,and Fernandez at Benfica!

The interesting thing with these permanent signings is the lengths of the contracts which they have got the players to sign. Mudryk is on over eight years,Fofana over six,and the others on standard five year deals. The latter is usually deemed to be at the upper length,but the others are virtually unheard of. 

Indeed,I’m reminded of the sordid contracts that Jim McLean used to get his players to sign way back when,or of the younger pros at certain Scottish Premiership clubs with contract which fell foul of National Minimum Wage regulations when they were introduced. 

In each case,the SFA to their credit intervened and outlawed such practices. And while FIFA/UEFA haven’t directly intervened in the Chelsea contracts,they have made clear their displeasure at them.

The problem is that the new Financial Sustainability Regulations currently have a loophole,one which was blindingly obvious in hindsight. That an incoming player’s transfer fee can be amortised in the accounts across the length of that contract. That means that,for instance,Modryk will only cost Chelsea around £11m annually instead of nearer £20m. That doesn’t sound like a huge difference,but multiply that by the number of new signings and it sure adds up. Additionally,of course,should they sell him at some point,the entire transfer fee is put on the books right away,a one-off payment even if the fee is paid in instalments!

It is in the interests of the wider game that such financial jiggery-pokery is nipped in the bud. That is simply too much of a temptation for some clubs to resist,as we have seen. Boehly at Chelsea has done it because he has a largely ageing side,who along with some misfits need to be replaced. But other clubs elsewhere will seek to exploit such a loophole,as we know to our cost. The last decade or so has seen a number of clubs using side-letters for instance,or other disguised payments. 

And no,it isn’t just the huns!

Juventus got their fingers caught in the till when they exchanged players with Barcelona for an inflated $80m each,with both clubs booking an instant €60m profit! (Interestingly,Barcelona have not yet been pulled up for this one.) That practice too needs serious investigation and restriction. 

Fortunately,the two organisations are making noises about tightening up in time for FSR introduction. There is already top level discussion taking place,with the intention of reducing the maximum amortisation process to five years. That is a very big step in the right direction,but I think they could go a stage further and put a limit on the lengths of contracts. 

The current system,post-Bosman,is a huge improvement on what went before,but it still stinks of the medieval method of indentured labour. Yes,a long contract gives a player a notional sense of security,but we know that not all players are properly advised. Indeed,some agents have been known to work both ends against the middle,or worse. 

Clubs can insure themselves against loss if a player is out with long term injuries,and even when a player’s career is wrecked by one. They have little to lose with contracts of this length. And if they are unhappy with the player’s performance,they can inform agents and other clubs that he is for sale. There are,in other words,ways of protecting the club’s investment. An unhappy player though can ask for as many transfers as he likes,and if the club decide to hold him to that contract that he signed as a callow youth,he literally has no place to go. 

So the idea of extremely lengthy contracts doesn’t just protect the club in its accounts-as has been suggested-it ties a player to a decision he made when he was a completely different person.

There is a strong case to be made for introducing a four-year limit on contracts. Who knows,it might even make some clubs think twice about the spiralling transfer market,and bring back some much needed sanity. 

<><><><><>
Above article by BMCUWP.