Superblue

I think the bigger picture needs looking at. Chances of us either winning the Champions League or making top 4 are probably at best about 20%. Most people have wanted us to get rid of Jorginho for years, and we now have an option to take £12m for a player who we'd expected was leaving for nothing anyway. It's a great deal that we have to run with in my opinion. If we're left a little short for now, so be it. Give one of the young players a go in there. Personally I'd have no problem giving Webster a couple of games whilst we're still waiting on players to come back from injury if we're short on players in there.

That's your interpretation. I think it's important to put things into context and really split the summer from this window when we've started to put together a structure more along the lines of what the club is looking to do in the long term. We've bought some players in who are extremely highly rated young talents, and whilst its very early days, I think the signs are promising for Mudryk and Badiashile that they will become extremely important players here for a long time. Madueke I think is only a risk purely on injury history but he's another that adds pure pace and the ability to attack defenders which we've lacked since the likes of Willian and Hazard left the club. And Gusto is arguably the highest rated young right back around who we've signed up. And if reports are true, Nkunku too. I look at these moves with a lot of positivity that there is a lot of talent there to help us short term but also an enormous amount of potential to help us even more long term. The midfield clearly needs to be sorted out, but if Enzo doesn't happen now, I'd rather we hold firm and sort things in the summer than go for short term fixes or panic buys. I'm hoping the Gusto deal suggests that the club moving forward are more prepared to wait to get their top targets rather than settling with who is the best target now.

Whilst I want us to buy Enzo, I do always find it funny on here on or around deadline day. It's always a complete toxic meltdown. I think if we don't buy Enzo in this window it won't be for the want of trying, and it shouldn't be forgotten all the other positive moves made in this window. Rome wasn't built in a day and Chelsea won't complete a rebuild in a window or two.

Exactly this. If we become that desperate to do the deal we'll activate the clause. Even better payment terms and more money up front from here on in will be wins for the bloke and Benfica. I think there's a lot of twists and turns today and people just need to stay calm. Unless we think we've got a genuine shout at the Champions League this season, no move is going to make or break things this year. If we get Enzo in now then great, it's another massive part of the rebuild. If it doesn't happen now, then hopefully we'll be laying some ground work for the summer. Benfica have reportedly travelled for their game tonight without him so that's one positive to take to encourage that a deal is very much still achievable.

Whilst I would hope that Jorginho moving on does signal the arrival of Enzo, I think in this situation we do have to look at both separately. Jorginho is one foot out the door already and could very easily have already agreed a return to Italy for the summer and his head already out the club, particularly given where we are in the league. At some point we can't keep spending this level of money and not make some good sales along the way and from a certain free transfer to now £12m in the bank represents good business. It would maybe be a different situation if we were in the middle of a title or top 4 push but realistically this season's league campaign is heading the way of a write off anyway.

It's wrote in a backhanded way but suggests if we spent £280m on players and signed them all to 7 year contracts, then the FFP annual cost on the transfer fees is £40m per annum. Selling Gallagher at what would be pure profit would cover all of that year's FFP liability on such transfer activity.

I think Zakaria could offer a good profile along side Enzo if he could himself stay fit.

I think in Chelsea's case it is also important for FFP treatment too. As you have suggested, to activate the clause involves Enzo paying it (i.e. buying out his contract), and to do this Chelsea will have to give him the money and pay relevant taxes over and above this figure to him. But another key is that if Chelsea pay Enzo, this payment isn't treated like a normal transfer transaction for FFP purposes where it can be spread over the length of his contract, it would have to be treated as one lump payment in this year's accounts for FFP which I don't think will make things possible. In this situation, we'd actually be better off ironically paying a little over the release clause and spreading over I'm guessing 7 - 8 years than activating the clause and footing the FFP cost in full now. Benfica will know this, as well as you mentioned, the additional costs involved with activating the clause, and as a result will look to extract what they can. Ultimately though, Benfica are tough negotiators but they are a selling club. If the price is right they'll do a deal and I don't think they're the sort of club who would put their foot down because it's the end of the window like how Brighton are looking to do with Caicedo. I think if anything, they'll be encouraged that they can get potentially a better deal now then they can in the summer when other midfielders may enter the market as targets for the top teams.

Yes, it'll never be a complete level playing field, none more so than individual countries domestic rights and sponsorships, and as mentioned earlier, they can't legally enforce a prevention of us offering longer than 5 year contracts so long as our country's law and legislation will oblige. But I can understand them doing so in order to allow all clubs across UEFA to account for transfer fees and amortisation practices in the same manner.

I would highly doubt that. If we did confirm we'd pay the release clause, I think they'd accommodate for it. It would be foolish on their behalf not to, as our owners aren't going away anytime soon and they don't know in the future when they might want a player from Chelsea, especially on loan if we start tapping more into markets such as South America (and in doing so, essentially stepping on their toes). They will likely also be acutely aware that Portugal is one of the main countries being touted for where we'd like an affiliate club, so dealings with Chelsea's ownership may become more frequent and important in the future too. Fair enough them standing their ground on price, but if we agreed to it, it would be silly for them to spite that.

Not sure whether it would be quite as simple as that. UEFA aren't preventing us from offering longer contracts to players, so I'm not sure a restraint of trade is as present as it looks. Given that UEFA's FFP rules aren't as cut and dry as standard accounting rules (i.e. they allow for a number of expenses to be not included in their FFP calculations), I struggle to see where one could argue with them changing certain aspects over time so long as sufficient time is provided and they're not going back to change things retrospectively. I would much prefer that they didn't do this, as it is clearly a plan that Chelsea have mapped out to allow for more spending now to get the team rebuilt. Not quite sure just how much more has or was planned, I would expect the transfer spending to calm down after the summer window anyway. However looking beyond Chelsea for a minute, I can understand UEFA deciding to close the loophole, mainly because there are countries that are restricted to the length of contract that can be given out as this is based on its own country's contract law and legislation, hence it's not leaving a level playing field in that regard.

Would agree, he's not quite in that top echelon of legends due to the longevity aspect, but he is definitely a Chelsea legend. I mentioned this before but one of the closest players he resembles to be honest is Vialli. Someone that has enjoyed his prime and created a legacy elsewhere and joined here in his twilight years but put every ounce of energy and commitment into making themselves a success here and just embracing the culture and fans of the club. He's the equivalent of footballing royalty and it's easy to say to implement a plan to phase him out but someone actually needs to step up first and consistently play above his level. I'm genuinely unsure if there's a centre back in the league currently that is better than him right now, let alone at Chelsea.

And even then in my house, it still usually means yes in the end!

Top 4 here we come!

I believe for the Champions League purpose that is effectively what the B list is and the same rules apply. It means that regardless who we sign in this window, we can only register three of them max. The premier league rules are different, and I believe both would qualify for the under 21 list for now which gives us more flexibility in that competition.

The application is impressive. Talent is obviously a must, and it looks like he has plenty of it, but that willingness to squeeze every bit of potential out of his career could be a real difference maker to what he ends up achieving. It's part of the overall package of why everyone loves Lampard so much. Added to this, if he becomes a big player here and everyone sees what he is putting in to reaching that level, it'll rub off on others too.

I believe not, they need to have been at the club for a period of time before qualifying for this list. I may be wrong but as an example I don't think Carney is on our B list because he joined in the summer, whereas Broja was/is on the B list.

Preference to get them done now, but bare in mind we're restricted on only having three additions to the Champions League squad anyway. We can't add them all.

A couple of points on this UEFA change: 1. Although it affects future FFP accounting on transfers, I don't see the club changing it's ways. I still see younger players being signed up to longer contracts. The ability for English clubs to do this over European rivals is still an advantage to get players locked in. Would still not be surprised to see 6, 7, 8 year contracts still in the future at the club. 2. We've already got a leg up - maybe Chelsea were aware this may happen hence why activity in January has ramped up. 3. Wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea end up reaching an agreement on Gusto and Enzo, but to let them go back on loan for the rest of the season to help smooth the transfer. In fairness having them longer term is more important than the next 6 months and if it aids us securing them and making use of the loophole now then so be it.

If the 2020 summer is included in that though, that's when we bought Werner, Havertz, Ziyech, Chilwell, Mendy etc and didn't really make any big sales if I remember rightly. It was more so players being moved on at end of contracts like Willian and Pedro so I would assume transfers wise that summer may have been a big deficit. May just depend on how everything falls into which assessment period, etc.

Completely agree. When the talk of renovating an existing stadium is somewhere around the billion pound mark, it's just not economically feasible. As you've pointed out, other teams have helped offset a chunk of the costs of a new stadium with some form of redevelopment or sale of the old site. In our situation, this is even more significant given where Stamford Bridge sits. The issue simply is in what situation will the CPO agree to this? I completely understand the reluctance in what is quite a delicate situation, and with what the club had to go through in recent months will have only strengthened that resolve that the hold over the Bridge is justified to retain some power within the club. I'm not sure legally the positioning, but could there be a situation where the new ownership could agree to switch the CPO leasehold over to a new site, to allow the move? That might potentially help, but in all honesty I think there's too many people who's minds are made up that they don't want to move from the Bridge.

Unless someone kicks some incredible form on for the second half of the season, I think he's currently nailed on this year.

I think in the position that we're in right now, there were quite a few positives to take today. I know it's hardly a vintage Liverpool side currently with their own struggles, but given the starting XI we put out and some of the inexperience in there playing away at Anfield, I thought the application and effort from the team was overall excellent. Defensively gave them little and looked solid. Thiago Silva is quite literally a joke, it should be illegal how good he is at his age. I do really like Badiashile too. He's a bit raw in some instances but he looks extremely promising and definitely looks a more solid bet than Koulibaly who I think will find his days numbered as players start to return from injury. Again, just lacking at times that final ball, or shot. The composure in and around the box just isn't good enough currently, but there were some much improved passages of play and a bit more personality to our game than recent weeks. 13 days now until the next game, new signings to bed in, injured players closer to full fitness and two positive results to build on. It does just feel like things are turning a little bit for the better, and you can see that a bit more in GP's demeanour and press conferences too. Mudryk looks very promising. That pace, utilised properly and effectively, will be an absolute weapon. But I'd seen his pace and dribbling abilities on videos before today's game, what impressed me even more was other parts of his game. Looked technically very accomplished, good choice and weight of pass, willingness to run, tracked back and won the ball a couple of times. From what I've seen in the brief performances so far from Mudryk, Badiashile and even Felix is promising to suggest that our transfers this window are positive to the long term build of the side. That in itself leaves me much more open minded to trust the new scouting and recruitment teams to get decisions right on signings.

GP in his presser mentioned he doesn't expect much more transfer movement this month and seemed to hint that January is difficult and top targets aren't always available. I'm happy with this if true. Obviously it's critical looking forward to sort our midfield out but I'd much rather we wait to the summer if it means picking up a top target instead of a B or C grade option for now.