EPTmudryk is a young kid who was about to make a very reasonable move to a top club and in the last minute, agreed to what could easily be a prison sentence just for some extra cash he would have no problem making anyway if he performs to even half the expectations being placed upon him.
2022 - 2023 Football Thread - Page 70
| Forum Index > Sports |
New Thread! Sneirac has delivered! | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8657 Posts
mudryk is a young kid who was about to make a very reasonable move to a top club and in the last minute, agreed to what could easily be a prison sentence just for some extra cash he would have no problem making anyway if he performs to even half the expectations being placed upon him. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
On January 17 2023 15:53 sharkie wrote: I dont think 100k a week for 8 years is a huge risk for a club like Chelsea. Thats peanuts to them. Its a huge risk for the player Chelsea is a big club, but 5.2m a year isn't pocket change... E: wow, not sure where I got 100k a day from. 5.2m a year is still not pocket change, though  | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
And maybe there's also a psychological impact on the other players. If the Mudryk contract is such a sweet deal, they may start pushing for better contracts. Especially if Mudryk struggles to live up the hype. Overall, the deal has positive benefits but also huge risks for Chelsea as a club. It's a gamble. Time will tell whether it pays off. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6214 Posts
On January 17 2023 15:53 sharkie wrote: I dont think 100k a week for 8 years is a huge risk for a club like Chelsea. Thats peanuts to them. Its a huge risk for the player It is the opposite. The player is reducing risk while the club is taking over that risk. Any upwards potential he had now goes to the club but he has also insured that any downward risk is covered. If he becomes world class he loses out because of the deal but if he does not perform for whatever reason he wins. You can think it is a bad move for him to do that but I do not think so. He has basically ensured that he will make 20 million net whatever happens. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8657 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28673 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On January 17 2023 17:52 RvB wrote: It is the opposite. The player is reducing risk while the club is taking over that risk. Any upwards potential he had now goes to the club but he has also insured that any downward risk is covered. If he becomes world class he loses out because of the deal but if he does not perform for whatever reason he wins. You can think it is a bad move for him to do that but I do not think so. He has basically ensured that he will make 20 million net whatever happens. The probability of him becoming world class is also contingent on the conditions he finds at the new club. ie. João Felix or Renato Sanches would have had higher chances of becoming world class players had they gone to different clubs than Atletico Madrid or Bayern Munich. EDIT: There's also another type of risk we often forget, which is that in the Premier League if you stay out of the top 4 for more than a couple of seasons you might get stuck in mid-table team status (aka Tottenham), given how competitive and how many resources other teams have. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
On January 17 2023 15:53 sharkie wrote: I dont think 100k a week for 8 years is a huge risk for a club like Chelsea. Thats peanuts to them. Its a huge risk for the player I get this side of your argument, but the side of if he turns into the next Hazard he has screwed himself over is wrong. He will be offered revised terms, or as others pointed out he will throw his toys out of the pram and force a move out. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8657 Posts
On January 18 2023 04:19 Pandemona wrote: I get this side of your argument, but the side of if he turns into the next Hazard he has screwed himself over is wrong. He will be offered revised terms, or as others pointed out he will throw his toys out of the pram and force a move out. yeah none of those things are for certain. being offered revised terms is relying on a multi billion dollar institution to be "nice". kane had the same hopes and was shown the reality of the business world. the club have no obligation to revise terms if after 2 years mudryk is shown to be very good. the entire benefit for chelsea comes exactly from them not having to provide better terms than 100k for 7 whole years. as for forcing a move out, if mudryk was at any other club i would agree that that is a card mudryk still holds, but with chelsea weve seen in the past that they are happy to let players rot rather than sell them. therein lies the risk for mudryk. hes at the mercy of the club for 7 years and what we typically consider to be leverage on the players side may not even exist because the club is chelsea. | ||
|
DropBear
Australia4353 Posts
On January 18 2023 10:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: yeah none of those things are for certain. being offered revised terms is relying on a multi billion dollar institution to be "nice". kane had the same hopes and was shown the reality of the business world. the club have no obligation to revise terms if after 2 years mudryk is shown to be very good. the entire benefit for chelsea comes exactly from them not having to provide better terms than 100k for 7 whole years. as for forcing a move out, if mudryk was at any other club i would agree that that is a card mudryk still holds, but with chelsea weve seen in the past that they are happy to let players rot rather than sell them. therein lies the risk for mudryk. hes at the mercy of the club for 7 years and what we typically consider to be leverage on the players side may not even exist because the club is chelsea. This was how it was at Abramovich's Chelsea, but it's not Abramovich's Chelsea anymore, or Granovskaia's. Boehly might be different. Only one way to find out | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On January 17 2023 20:15 warding wrote: The probability of him becoming world class is also contingent on the conditions he finds at the new club. ie. João Felix or Renato Sanches would have had higher chances of becoming world class players had they gone to different clubs than Atletico Madrid or Bayern Munich. EDIT: There's also another type of risk we often forget, which is that in the Premier League if you stay out of the top 4 for more than a couple of seasons you might get stuck in mid-table team status (aka Tottenham), given how competitive and how many resources other teams have. Great point. Modern football is ultra-competitive. Top clubs splash money to buy up young rising players, sometimes just based on a wild hunch (FOMO factor, high-risk-high-reward gamble). Some clubs expect instant returns and can ruthlessly cold-storage struggling players. Some clubs are more patient and generally better at grooming talents. A youngster needs to find the right club in terms of long-term footballing development and not just short-term financial benefits. The right fit depends on the right league, club, manager, and squad. And of course, the right timing - is it better to join a top club on the upswing (eg Real Madrid), or a top club rebuilding and in transition (eg Barca)? So many permutations, that ultimately the player's decision comes down to gut feel. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18413 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
| ||
|
DropBear
Australia4353 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8657 Posts
On January 19 2023 07:12 Oukka wrote: Fuck. I cannot even claim that we really snatched that draw from the jaws of victory, as the free kick was just so spot on. I'll be a bit salty about McTominay not getting a penalty, but otherwise wee can only blame ourselves for not scoring a second earlier on. just saw the mctominay incident in highlights and wow how did that not get called. var straight up trying to compensate for the city game | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9653 Posts
On January 19 2023 12:15 evilfatsh1t wrote: just saw the mctominay incident in highlights and wow how did that not get called. var straight up trying to compensate for the city game I think this one was a victim of the higher bar for interfering for VAR. It certainly wasn't clear and obvious whether the defender took the ball. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8657 Posts
On January 19 2023 14:07 Jockmcplop wrote: I think this one was a victim of the higher bar for interfering for VAR. It certainly wasn't clear and obvious whether the defender took the ball. really? from all angles i saw in the highlights it looked very clear that the defender didnt get the ball | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9653 Posts
On January 19 2023 14:46 evilfatsh1t wrote: really? from all angles i saw in the highlights it looked very clear that the defender didnt get the ball After watching all the replays in slow motion yeah it looks like he didn't get the ball. It really depends what they mean by 'high bar' for interference. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
Christian Streich: The skinny-dipping managerial maverick shaking up the Bundesliga https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/64303754 | ||
| ||
