OhForAGreavsie

It's hard to imagine that GP won't explore that. In training at the very least.

That's not my understanding of the regulation. Rule 46 does not seem to offer any exceptions other than regarding goalkeepers.

We only had twenty-four players in list A for the group stage. It's a shame that you can't just add enough non-list B players to bring you up to twenty-five. That would allow four additions, not three, so we'd get to include Badi and Joao. That's not the way it is however. Shame.

All of which probably means Noni won't make the CL squad.

Kone certainly passes the highlights test. Comfortably.

Hakim has probably bought into the idea of being a regular rotation option, perhaps backing up more than one starter, so that he will get a reasonable number of minutes. Also in Paris there is probably no danger of him having to take a pay cut to secure the move. It would only be natural if that is also a factor for him.

Assuming the negotiations have stretched that long, they clearly have not been about nothing. I don't know about anyone else, but I've had enough of trying to guess what's going on. I've made enough attempts at it already. The people in the room will let us know the outcome when they're done. 🙂

I'm not in a rush to sign Caicedo for big money. There were a few projections earlier today of how our first choice line-up could look after the close of the window. Neither of the two I looked at included Denis Zakaria, but I would really like to see him given time to make an impact with the the new group of options ahead of him, and behind him come to that.

I'm sure Hakim would jump at that opportunity if it materialises. I hope for his sake that it does, and good luck to him if he makes the move.

I'm pretty sure that pointing to the buyout clause is exactly what Benfica are doing. They'll be saying, "Dear Chelsea, we don't want to sell the player and won't do so so unless we are contractually compelled. So, unless you are determined to spend the amount necessary to proceed with the buyout, would you please go away. If, however, you have persuaded the player to trigger his buyout, and are prepared to give him the money to do it, the deal will cost you €120m plus tax. Then, and only then, we would be prepared to accept a negotiated transfer fee of €120m plus 90% of the tax. You still get the player for less than it would cost to fund the buyout, and this massively improves your FFP position compared to what it would be if the clause was triggered." Chelsea would recognise the 90% ask as a bargaining position and the two clubs would get into a negotiation about exactly how much more than the clause amount Chelsea will pay. As I've said before, this is guesswork, but I don't think truth will be far from it.

Whether a fee is paid in full upfront, or on some agreed schedule, makes no difference to FFP. Either way the total fee can be amortised for FFP accounting purposes. Fully paid up front, or on a payment schedule, affects the affordability for the buying club, but doesn't impact FFP. This relates to standard transfer fees, including release clauses, but not to buyout clauses. Giving a player the money to purchase his buyout counts as paying him a wage, and wages have to be accounted for, in full, during the FFP year in which they are paid.

On the face of it, the fact that there are negotiations, is already a softening from their public position. We have to remember that one of the principal, if not the principal, audience for Rui Costa public statements is Benfica fans. What he says publicly, or perhaps the way he says it, might not be the whole truth about his position. Ultimately Benfica know how much it would cost Chelsea, including add-ons, to trigger the buyout clause. If Chelsea say they are willing to do that, then it makes sense for Benfica to come to the table and try to negotiate some of that extra money for themselves as part of an ordinary transfer, rather than watch that extra cash disappear in taxes which serves neither Club's purposes. This is guesswork of course, but it sounds reasonable to me and fits with the report the we are offering a figure above the buyout clause.

I think it must be because Chelsea are willing to pay the buyout clause amount, but are not willing to formally trigger the clause given the tax implications. As such, it becomes a "normal" transfer negotiation. This means Benfica could say no, but it also means they can ask for more than €120m, and this is apparently exactly what they are doing.

What a good day for Chelsea rumours yesterday was. Much less newsworthy than all the Enzo talk obviously, but just as important to the team, CFCW have been linked with Arsenal's Katie McCabe. She's a left-sided player with great physical and technical attributes and the habit for collecting yellow cards. She even managed to pick one up against us a couple of weeks ago despite only playing for a few minutes. Nominally a midfielder, McCabe can play anywhere down the left. If she joins I expect it would be to become our starting left back. She has apparently asked for permission to speak to Chelsea but with 18 months remaining on her deal I'd say there is zero chance this goes anywhere. Arsenal would have to have lost all of their marbles, bought some more and lost those too, to sell such a valuable player, in mid-season no less, to their biggest rival rival.

Yes exactly. Funding a player to trigger his buyout clause is treated as paying him wages. Wages must be accounted, in full, for FFP in the season they are paid.

Good luck to the lad.

This "book" that I'm reading just took a very strange turn. 🙂

The above buyout clause element of the story sounds convincing to me. Someone, I can't remember who but thank you, posted a link to the rules governing the tax treatment of buyout clause transfers. If I correctly understood what I read, then the tax situation of both the buying, and the selling, Club is more favourable when the deal is completed without formally triggering the clause. I wrote some time ago suggesting that the negotiation would be based on Benfica wanting to split the savings with Chelsea. I'm not convinced that the €160m figure is accurate but if we use it as an example, Chelsea would save about €40m by completing the deal as a standard transfer. My two guesses were, and are, that Benfica are asking for a sizeable chunk of that saving, and that this process explains why Chelsea paid over the buyout clause for Nkunku.

That's the most nothing statement imaginable. "Breaking: Chelsea directors could order a pizza in Covent Garden."

I've had a very busy few days. When I got back from Kingsmeadow this afternoon I had something to eat and promptly fell asleep I woke up about half an hour ago and have been reading through this thread. I can honestly say this is the most fun transfer Saga ever. This is partly because I don't think I've ever seen a Chelsea forum display such unanimity about a transfer target. It's the first time I remember becoming convinced about a transfer based purely on the opinions of other people. I simply do not think it is possible that you could all be wrong. This second-hand opinion means I feel a little bit detached, and can just read the thread like an enjoyable book. 🙂🙂

Players cannot improve their innate technical ability. They can only learn to make better use of what they have. Remember when people were telling us that Rom had been doing extra training with Conte and had improved his? The Messi principle applies; if players could improve their innate technical level, then why wouldn't they all just keep practicing until they became Lionel Messi?

Good info, thank you. Our long-term backup keeper, Zecira Musovic, has been preferred over regular starter, Ann-Katrin Berger in recent matches. She put in a stellar display at The Emirates to help earn a point against Arsenal. For now at least it seems we have a new first choice keeper. AKB is the oldest member of the squad and may not want to stick around if she loses top spot, and that would open a spot for a newcomer. 'Zee' is due to be out of contract this summer, while AKB's deal runs until the end of next season.

That's why the local council was practically begging them to build the new stadium. 🙂

Of course it's highly possible that this has been, or is being, discussed between the clubs. Certainly it would have occurred to our side.

In UK usage that's used to refer to one specific place. Shithole can be used to describe any place.