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..
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Chelsea moaning about PSR
- Thread starter brighton_tom
- Start date
I don't think it's lying, it's just presenting information in a way that favours them without telling the whole story.
- Jul 27, 2024
- 583
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.
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
I have changed this
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!
- Jul 27, 2024
- 583
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.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.
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.
Last edited:
The football finance expert who is posting on this thread? Us, is the people on this thread.
Take that up with the person who posted it.
Maybe it has been exposed.
I didn't. Read the thread.
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.
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?!
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
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
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
He/Him
Another David v Goliath victory for little old Leicester.
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.
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?
Last edited:
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
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.
I’ve not said they are being paid!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?
- Jul 27, 2024
- 583
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.
- Jul 27, 2024
- 583
But WHY do you presume he’s correct?
Where’s the evidence? What might Chelsea gain with this deception?
Fair enough. I misinterpreted the idea that they were client journalists, as opposed to just journalists.
He tends to be right about these things. Maybe he's not. My guess is that he is.
That's a question for him.