[Football] Chelsea moaning about PSR

[Rowdey]

Chelsea are briefing client journalists with the tale that mant new signings are coming in on low salaries of £60k a week and this is being parroted as if it is gospel.

Remember the Albion had an agreement to sell Caicedo to Liverpool before he went to Chelsea? Liverpool pay high salaries and therefore Chelsea would have to match those shirley?

The only way that wouldn’t happen would be if Chelsea persuaded Caicedo’s agent with a big commision to lie to the player that Liverpool were offering a low salary. Therefore what was on offer from Chelsea would appear competitive. I’m sure both the club and the agent are far too professional to do something that underhand.

Palmer and Jackson have just signed extensions to their contracts committing themselves to staying at The Chels until 2033, they won’t have done that for peanuts.

In unrelated news, I heard TS Saudi/Chelsea head slime ball reporter say that Palmer signed his extension on £70k a week.. thought odd at the time, but it MUST be true..

 

[Hiheidi]

If Chelsea are feeding a lie to journalists they pay (I said if), then it's not true no matter how many of them say it, especially if they're well connected to the club.

I don't think it's lying, it's just presenting information in a way that favours them without telling the whole story.

 

[Professor Plum]

I can give you a couple of reasons to doubt it. 1) An expert has told us that Chelsea are paying people to claim that new signings are on low salaries and 2) We know the expensive signings they're making don't accept such low salaries at other PL clubs.

Sorry, what expert and who is "us" here? Maybe I missed an earlier post.

I'm afraid I put zero credence on the idea that "Chelsea are paying people to claim that new signings are on low salaries". There is no way that such a tale would not be exposed by others in the journo community, by the players themselves, and by those ITK at the club and at the Premier League. Hundreds of people must have access to salary data. You can\t shut them all up. On top of that I see no great benefit for Chelsea to be seen as low payers.

And yet you think players are going to be happy to take his place on just £60k a week? "Hi, we think you're better than Sterling, and want you to do what he does, but for a fifth of the salary - ok?"

Not sure why you picked on £60K a week though certainly there will be plenty of players in that bloated squad who will be earning less than that. Conor Gallagher was paid less than that.

Chelsea's new lower salary/higher performance-related pay structure isn't that controversial. The refusal or inability to pay Olise and Osimhen what they could get elsewhere was why those transfers failed.

 

[madinthehead]

Is there a better example of how to f*** it up and be disliked? They’re the DonaLd Trump of football.

Chelsea is the best team. It is the best we have ever seen. We have the beat players and this is all down to my incredible business acumen!

 

[Professor Plum]

It's an interesting topic.
Personally, I'd have though that confident young players (e.g. Palmer) would take the higher salary and shorter contract (if given the choice).... thanks very much. He knows he'd be snapped up in a few years.

I've no proof for what Palmer earns but he was widely reported to have improved his contract very recently. Extended by 2 years and supposedly increased earnings from £80K a week to £130K. I've seen those figures mentioned a lot. But he can still move whenever he wants. If Chelsea and the player are offered a lot of money for him to move then he will probably move. Him having a long contract doesn't really affect things.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't think it's lying, it's just presenting information in a way that favours them without telling the whole story.

El Pres has just stated that the journalists (EDIT) are being used by Chelsea, and they are telling a tale about salaries, that is being parroted as if it's true, when there's a good chance it isn't. So that would be lying, not presenting it in a certain way.

What are you wanting to highlight from that tweet? How does it suggest that Chelsea don't have a huge wage bill.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sorry, what expert and who is "us" here? Maybe I missed an earlier post.

The football finance expert who is posting on this thread? Us, is the people on this thread.

I'm afraid I put zero credence on the idea that "Chelsea are paying people to claim that new signings are on low salaries"

Take that up with the person who posted it.

There is no way that such a tale would not be exposed by others in the journo community, by the players themselves, and by those ITK at the club and at the Premier League.

Maybe it has been exposed.

Not sure why you picked on £60K a week

I didn't. Read the thread.

 

[dazzer6666]

Well they’re reportedly still paying Sterling 200k p/w to play for Arsenal

 

[raymondo]

Well they’re reportedly still paying Sterling 200k p/w to play for Arsenal

That's what I read too: Arsenal paying less than half his salary.

 

[Van Cleef]

How would Chelsea benefit by briefing journos about their lowish salary rates though?
Surely it will eventually all come out in the wash (accounts) anyway.

 

[Hiheidi]

What are you wanting to highlight from that tweet? How does it suggest that Chelsea don't have a huge wage bill.

I'm agreeing that they DO have a huge wage bill but are careful with the way facts are presented ie. We don't know how many players it includes which would effect the average. The average is the base salary so not including bonuses and other payments, which would make the actual figure higher. And they are using average rather than range, median or mode to present the figure as lower. Not sure why you are being arsy?!

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Looks like Leicester have played and won the “ technicality” card

their argument was as they were in the football league when the charges for the previous EPL year, technically they hadn’t jurisdiction even though they blatantly spent too much in the EPL.

still haven’t heard about Man City

 

[crodonilson]

Looks like Leicester have played and won the “ technicality” card

their argument was as they were in the football league when the charges for the previous EPL year, technically they hadn’t jurisdiction even though they blatantly spent too much in the EPL.

still haven’t heard about Man City

Another David v Goliath victory for little old Leicester.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm agreeing that they DO have a huge wage bill but are careful with the way facts are presented ie. We don't know how many players it includes which would effect the average. The average is the base salary so not including bonuses and other payments, which would make the actual figure higher.

But none of that is relevant to my post, which you quoted. El Pres made a post about Chelsea (EDIT - getting) journalists to claim that players were on low wages. I assume El Pres is correct. You're added a tweet about their players' average salary, but I hadn't talked about that.

Not sure why you are being arsy?!

This was my post to you: "What are you wanting to highlight from that tweet? How does it suggest that Chelsea don't have a huge wage bill."

How is that arsy?

 

[Easy 10]

That's what I read too: Arsenal paying less than half his salary.

Straight from the Leeds Utd playbook, when they were paying half of Robbie Fowlers salary for him to play for Man City.

That ended well.

 

[El Presidente]

But none of that is relevant to my post, which you quoted. El Pres made a post about Chelsea paying journalists to claim that players were on low wages. I assume El Pres is correct. You're added a tweet about their players' average salary, but I hadn't talked about that.




This was my post to you: "What are you wanting to highlight from that tweet? How does it suggest that Chelsea don't have a huge wage bill."

How is that arsy?

I’ve not said they are being paid!

 

[Professor Plum]

I can give you a couple of reasons to doubt it. 1) An expert has told us that Chelsea are paying people to claim that new signings are on low salaries and 2) We know the expensive signings they're making don't accept such low salaries at other PL clubs.

And yet you think players are going to be happy to take his place on just £60k a week? "Hi, we think you're better than Sterling, and want you to do what he does, but for a fifth of the salary - ok?"

Ok, I’ve read the post but I see absolutely no evidence to support these claims from 'the expert' so this doesn’t amount to any reason to doubt that Chelsea are trying to change the way they pay most of their players. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t think it’s feasible that there is some mass initiative among the media to conceal the truth. Most important, what is to be gained by Chelsea to pretend that they’re moving towards a performance/incentivised model when they’re actually not? It actually makes sense to go for incentives as they become self-financing and it’s also quite an American way of operating.

Players like Olise, Otimhen certainly do expect to be paid a lot and both have turned down Chelsea recently. Sancho's loan is being heavily subsidised by Man Utd. I doubt if Wolves were paying Neto a huge salary. Which leaves Felix. No idea what his salary was or will be but The Athletic are reporting today that he’s accepted a lower salary with the potential to earn a lot for success on the pitch. It’s yet another reference to Chelsea changing the model.

 

[Professor Plum]

But none of that is relevant to my post, which you quoted. El Pres made a post about Chelsea paying journalists to claim that players were on low wages. I assume El Pres is correct. You're added a tweet about their players' average salary, but I hadn't talked about that.

But WHY do you presume he’s correct?

Where’s the evidence? What might Chelsea gain with this deception?

 

[Triggaaar]

I’ve not said they are being paid!

Fair enough. I misinterpreted the idea that they were client journalists, as opposed to just journalists.

 

[Triggaaar]

But WHY do you presume he’s correct?

He tends to be right about these things. Maybe he's not. My guess is that he is.

Where’s the evidence? What might Chelsea gain with this deception?

That's a question for him.