OhForAGreavsie

Most definitely. 🙂

Unusual and irrelevant unless first he is an excellent DM. Andrey may well be an excellent DM but I haven't seen evidence of it in any of the all touches videos I've viewed. Looking forward to seeing him play for real.

Too soon to cash in?

In that video Andrey attempted one key pass, and missed it. Meanwhile, judging a DM by the goals he scores is like boarding a train at Victoria and expecting the next stop to be Edinburgh. You're not only on the wrong train, you're on the wrong track altogether.

What does very unique mean? 🙂

It would be fantastic to have two starting quality players at RB. At any position in fact. The ability for the manager to rotate as he sees fit is an advantage Man City have been clever enough create for themselves. If we're on the way to duplicating that then all hail the new regime.

Do the numbers indicate 'dangerous passes' per ninety ? And what qualifies as a dangerous pass?

That would be a much less clear case to make and, I think, a losing one: - All rule changes are designed to alter circumstances so that something which was previously allowed becomes disallowed, or that something previously disallowed becomes allowable. Nothing unusual in itself there. Considering that we, and other UK clubs, are currently advantaged by uefa regulations, and that many clubs can plausibly regard the status quo as being unfair, courts are not likely to support an argument that we would be disadvantaged by that situation being corrected. If challenged, I still think a court would force uefa to remove its five-year ceiling on contract length. I believe the five-Year amortisation cap would survive at challenge however. It isn't impacting the length of contracts clubs can offer to employees, and nor is it dictating how long clubs can take to pay transfer fees. It only affects the rules of membership to an organisation and I would expect the courts to leave that alone.

Yes, you are right of course.

The taxes buying clubs might pay in relation to buyout clauses are those for which the player is liable. I'm not sure that Enzo's applicable tax rate would be 25%, as implied by the €160m gross to produce €120m net story. If it is however, and we refused to cover the taxes, Enzo would net €90m from our €120m and I don't see where he'd get €30m to make up the shortfall. Unless perhaps he accepted a pay reduction over the length of his contract to cover the money. Maybe he would accept such a big reduction, but probably he wouldn't. Certainly the calculations are much more complicated than we, or at least I, realise.

Exactly. The end result of this attempt to restrict what Chelsea have done will be that everybody can do it. The restrictions which already apply in much of Europe will end up being overturned if a restraint of trade case goes to court. Meanwhile, I particularly like the last two words of your message.

Deleted

Deleted

I'm sorry to say that I think this is a fair and accurate assessment of what we see in those videos.

I'm happy, and eager, to give him that chance but, having watched some all-touches videos, I nevertheless have developed an opinion. I don't agree that one could say, "I am utterly unconvinced by what I've seen of ... ", about any 18 year old from a foreign league. That is self-evidently not the case. If it were then how would clubs decide which 18 year olds to sign from overseas and which to pass? Clubs watch players and form an opinion. Just as I have. Chelsea will have watched Andrey more thoroughly than I am able to, and should therefore have a stronger basis for their opinion. I recognised this fact when I said that I have no choice but to put my faith in the people who have a different opinion to mine. The thing I ground my hope in is that Andrey's highlights videos are more impressive than the all touches ones. That is not always the case.

It's a rolling calculation based on the current season plus the two previous ones. That means we have to make sure that this season's figures, plus those for 2021/22 and 2020/21 added together are within FFP rules. Next season 2023/24 comes in to the calculation and 2020/21 drops out.

Thank you. I meant 21 and under list.

Thanks for the correction. I mentioned the wrong list. I meant ask if it's not the case that they both qualify for the 21 and under list.

If signed, wouldn't both Enzo & Gutso qualify for list B?

Has Romano said anything about an agreement with Lyon?

To be fair I think many European clubs are not allowed to sign players to contracts longer than five years even if they had thought of it. I wonder if the fact that UK law allows longer contracts is one of Chelsea's 'structural advantages' TB talked about when Clearlake were bidding for the club?

Good shout.

It will be interesting to see it they have put a five year cap on amortisation periods, or if it refers to the initial contract only. I reckon it must be a five year cap even if contracts are renewed. Otherwise, there would still be a way around the new regulation by having players renew and getting a fresh five years to amortise the remaining transfer fee not yet accounted for under FFP.

Two things: - Every player's form goes up and down and, just like a sine curve, most of the time it is neither at the top of its range, nor at the bottom. In my opinion, the problem with Rom is that only his very best form is acceptable and, since he's hardly ever there, he was never going to be the answer for Chelsea. Marina organised the deal but she did not loose the gamble. Whoever made the decision that Rom was the player we should sign is the person who lost the gamble. That person was not Marina. No matter how many times people say or imply that, it will never be true.

It depends on how things were, FFP wise, in the 2020/21 season. That season is included in this year's FFP calculation, but drops off the books for next year's reckoning. If it was a year in which we had an FFP deficit, then it dropping off the books is helpful. If, however, we had a surplus that year then it dropping off the books is not helpful. I don't know how the books finished up then, but the income was pretty healthy that year thanks in no small part to an enjoyable evening in Oporto. 🙂