Talk:2023–24 Chelsea F.C. season

Football: England / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Initial and total transfer fee

It is becoming more popular for clubs to structure transfer fees in complicated, sometimes performance based, but secretive ways. The question can be asked, "what do clubs actually pay when a player transfer is contracted?". if 25%-50% of the fee paid is other than an initial fee, then it should be published in a clear and fair way.

I propose for two figures to be included in this wiki page, the initial fee and the total fee (when both are reported). Although the add-ons may be secretive, and we may never know the actual transfer fee or when it is paid, we can deduce that the fee paid will be somewhere in between the two figures.

In any other case, the initial fee does not represent the transfer fee and the secretive nature of the add-ons would results in an "undisclosed" transfer fee being reported in these wiki pages, just like the other undisclosed deals. 78.151.17.77 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for starting this conversation here. Unfortunately on Wikipedia we cannot deduce figures or fees according to policies such as WP:Crystal ball. There are a few issues in terms of reporting the add-ons including whether or not those add-ons are even achieved such as games played, Euro qualification, goals scored, trophies won, etc. I understand your perspective and agree it is a bit odd to report fees as such if there could be additional add-ons. My suggestion is to use the efn template to put a footnote about the particular player in question noting that there are reported additional add-ons for the player. I do not think the add-on needed to be added carte blanche throughout the article either.

I will wait to see what others say, but can I also recommend you create a Wikipedia account? It will make your life easier on Wikipedia and it also will not expose yourself or your identity through your IP address. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, initial fee is something quarantined and confirmed. We cannot assume those add-on terms are triggered to reach the certain fee. Chelsdog (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot assume add-ons will be paid, I fully agree. However, if fees are published on Wikipedia I think they should be open and clear. My wish for both numbers to be published would make it open, but would maybe make it unclear (and visa versa for just the initial fee).

I give an example of the recent Caicedo transfer: although we can't know for sure, I have seen report that the 15M of add-ons are almost definitely going to be paid because there are some very weak conditions on that 15M being paid. If this is the case but we can't know "for sure", Wikipedia will always report 100M, whereas in all probability it would be 115M. And therefore we unintentionally change history. How do we pick which is the publishable fee?

My opinion is that we either give both numbers, or we give none i.e. the actual fee is "undisclosed". Also, I think publishing only the initial fee will encourage other editors to continually change the number from 100M to 115M, and then other editors to change back.

As an additional note on the footnotes idea -- my problem with this is that a google search will not give the footnote in its blurb and will quote Wikipedia as saying the transfer fee is 100M (in the example above). What the google search blurb (of this wiki entry) should say is ".... initial fee is 100M..." or should say "... transfer fee is 100M-115M....".

Finally, I think this talk should be in a wider forum. It is not an issue to be solved on this page for the Chelsea 23/4 season. For stability, I think this page should be left as initial fee until there is a wider consensus including editors from other football wiki entries. 78.151.17.77 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can take List of most expensive association football transfers as a reference. The fees are ranked by initial fee, plus a note on the add-on fee. Chelsdog (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks quite neat! Although not a perfect solution, I can't think of a better one at this moment. Let's go with this until someone else can suggest something better -- at least it should stop different edits flip-flopping between e.g. 100M and 115M. 78.151.17.77 (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]