Cole Palmer has signed a two year contract extension at Chelsea, taking his deal until June 2033, David Ornstein has exclusively reported this afternoon for the Athletic.
The attacker has been rewarded after a brilliant debut season where he racked up 40 G/A in 45 appearances in all competitions. The rising star has been given a significantly improved wage as a reward. Without doubt he was the breakout star in the Premier League last season following his £40m move.
His excellent season with Chelsea was followed by a breakthrough campaign with England at the Euros. Within the space of a year he went from totally out of the picture to scoring a goal in the final. It looks certain he becomes a key player under whoever comes in to replace Gareth Southgate.
22 year old has only just played his first minutes of preseason in the final friendly of the summer against Inter Milan on Sunday, and won’t be expected to feature from the start against his old team Man City on Sunday.
Problem becomes clear already
Of course Palmer deserves a new contract – he was unbelievably good last season and has the potential to be a genuine game-changing star for years to come. Giving him higher wages after a great first season was a no brainer.
But this is exactly what we’ve been screaming about since the day the new ownership’s strategy became clear. They’re going around offering 8 year deals to young players, with lower wages to compensate for the excessive length.
But if you then start giving every player who does well a raise, you’re right back where you started in terms of your wage bill – except you’ve now got the likes of Mykhailo Mudryk and various other failed attempts at finding a new star hanging around for another 7 years, unsellable and unwanted.
Sometimes the conventional wisdom exists for a reason.
Your logic makes no sense, SuperFrank. Giving a player who has proved his value a pay rise (rather than locking in sky high ages at the outset) is smart business—full stop. The length of the contract (seven years) is a lot less relevant when the wages are super low because that player (a) isn’t costing you that much even if they are t producing on the pitch, and (b) they are infinitely easier to unload that someone on astronomical wages (like Lukaku or Sterling). Giving someone on a seven year contract higher wages a pay increase obviously represents a big commitment, but that precisely why you wait until the results are there! And it’s awfully hard to argue that Palmer hasn’t produced results. I mean are you honestly suggesting we shouldn’t have rewarded him with more money and, instead waited until he grew insulted and wanted away (like the previous ownership did with Rudiger)???