-
-
Our players have mostly been given extended 3rd year scholarships as they move from u18s to u21s (dev squad).
This year, a couple - Leahy and Tuck - have signed pro contracts, but that’s not the norm, certainly not at QPR in recent years.
Tuck is well capable of playing at champ level when fills out a bit.Comment
-
Darren Witcoop claims that Begovic is now close to join Newcastle and we are looking Mark Travers from Bournemouth as areplacement. Other names are consired too, but did´t mention more namesComment
-
-
This is how I understand the Kelman situation:
We started the January transfer window with no funds to strengthen the team. We had to be creative, to find ways to strengthen, if we should increase the chance of avoiding relegation. The loan deal of Dozzell was a gift sent from heaven and contributed well. Firstly, it freed up salaries of around £10k a week. On top, I assume we received a loan fee as he went to a competitor. It was also helpful that Sutton took Duke-McKenna on loan.
However, this might have been enough to get the three first signings across the line (Frey, Hodge, Hayden), but we needed a bit of extra creativity to afford Andersen.
This is where Kelman came into the picture. Kelmans contract was due to expire in June 2024. The club announced that we had extended it in connection with the loan deal signed with Wigan in January this year. Contracts for players registered for the first team have to run until the end of the season (they cannot expire in the midst of a season), so we extended it until 30 June 2025.
I am quite sure Marti doesn't expect Kelman to feature for QPR next season. He is not part of Martis plans, as he is simply not good enough. So why did we prolong his contract? Here is my take:
By extending Kelmans contract, the cost of amortising the acquisition costs of Kelman (the original transfer fee and any sign on fee we paid in 2020) will be spread over a longer period, which led to a saving in the the way FFP is computed in the 23/24 season. .
What does this mean in monetary term: Lets say we paid £600.000 for Kelman on a three year contract in 2000. This meant that we had to amortise the costs over three seasons, which would be £200.000 per season. When we extended the contract for the first time in 2023, the amortisation for the third season was suddenly spread over two seasons, with £100.000 in 22/23 and £100.000 in 23/24.
By extending his contract again (for a second time) in January 2024, we managed to spread the final £100.000 over two season, so £50.000 in 23/24 and £50.000 in 24/25. Hence, we freed up £50.000 in January (in the way FFP is calculated) that could go towards securing a deal with Andersen. We were sailing so close the the wind that this small amount was make it or break it when it came to Andersens signing.
Kelman's salary is modest, so the club took the risk, knowing it would allow us to sign Andersen without jeopardising the FFP limits. I think it was a clever move.
I think we will look to loan Kelman to Wigan or any other club, or to sell him or let him leave on the free, if he finds a new club. He is not part of our plans. But right now, he is contracted to June 2025.
Comment
-
Thanks for that Oslo, I had forgotten the one year extension. I think I rely too much on transfermarkt who have old information. Great insight into the strange workings of FFP!
https://www.transfermarkt.com/charli...spieler/633492Comment
-
Comment