Premier League: Is the loan system being abused by clubs?

[nailsy]

$$$$$$

Yeah, I should have worded that a bit differently. I can see from his point of view that singing a contract would make sense, but it seems strange from a Chelsea perspective. This is his third year on loan so he's not going to make it there, and his transfer value probably isn't going to go up now so why give him a new contract? Unless there are some new clauses in there? Then again, they probably aren't paying his wages anyway.

 

[tototoner]

Agree it's strange from Chelsea

 

[aliyid]

Not that strange from Chelsea when you think how sell on value is often linked to contract length.

They're prob thinking for Moses they can either let his contract run out and get nothing or sign 3-yr extension and sell him for £8m-£10M

 

[nailsy]

Not that strange from Chelsea when you think how sell on value is often linked to contract length.

They're prob thinking for Moses they can either let his contract run out and get nothing or sign 3-yr extension and sell him for £8m-£10M

But isn't the transfer value based partly on how much they owe the player in wages over the remaining length of their contract? So the money would actually go to Moses? Or am I getting that totally wrong?

 

[aliyid]

That's a whole other level with 'loyalty' bonuses included for not requesting a transfer...

Purely from a buying selling perspective, the way I've always seen it is the fewer years left on your contract the more power the player has (i.e. buying club have a £5m budget to spend on a player, they can either buy him for £4m and give him £20k/week or pick him up on a free transfer next year and give him £90k/week).

The selling club has to balance the risk/reward of recieving £4m now or losing the player for nothing next year. By signing Moses up for a longer contract they minimise the risk of him leaving for nothing and increase the chance of recieveing a transfer fee.