The England internationals are in the final year of their respective contracts at Stamford Bridge and the tabloid believes that they won’t be offered any more than a year extension due to a new club policy of only offering a one-year deal to thirty-somethings in the squad.
This means that they could leave on a free transfer in the summer and are free to negotiate a deal from January onwards, with the likes of Shanghai Shenhua and LA Galaxy interested in Lamps, whilst Carlo Ancelotti may want to sign Cole for Paris Saint-Germain.
Does this policy make sense?
Yes and no. In terms of Lampard, he’s 34 and is on astronomical wages with no reason to take any less when clubs abroad are willing to pay crazy money for him. It wouldn’t make any sense for Chelsea to offer more than a one-year extension, especially when he’s no longer a guaranteed starter. I reckon he’ll see out his contract in a similar way to Didier Drogba last season and is fully entitled to do so.
Roman Abramovich is also hoping to overhaul the squad by replacing the old with the new and we’re already seeing the benefits of this with exciting signings such as Juan Mata, Marko Marin, Eden Hazard and Oscar. Also, players like David Luiz, Ramires and John Obi Mikel are already permanent fixtures in the squad and have plenty of years left in them.
However, it doesn’t make sense when it comes to Cole and this is why each case should be viewed on its own merits. Cole is 31, still on top of his game and starts regularly for club and country. He’s surely got more than a year at the top level and should probably be offered a three-year deal. He’s already rejected a one-year extension as he seeks more security.
What is your opinion on the Lampard and Cole contract situations?
Source: The Sun