Radamel Falcao

[Kojo 4,676]

Usually when the rumours are so big like really really really huge and we all think it's impossible that they wont come, they usually don't. Just like Hulk and Modric, they to me seemed like already done deals before the rumours even cameby. Falcao is looking that way now, i have a bit of a feeling it wont happen. But then again i don't like that fee we will have to pay, infact i haven't liked that for ages. But looking at Torres, it just... i don't know it makes that fee look smaller.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

That's not the way it works. If we sell Sturridge (very likely), it means we have 12M pounds to spend. It doesn't mean that if we bought Coentrao for 12M, we'd get him for free. (Moutinho is probably not worth 28.5, but that's his clause). You have a Falcao fetish.You think he can't fail. He can. Anyone can.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!??! That is precisely how it works! money in on transfers is used to fund incoming transfers... We sell assets to fund the acquisition of other assets!

And yes I do have a Falcao fetish, I like players who score bushels of goals particularly for my club... It can most certainly go sour but the likelihood is lessened when you look at the type of player he is and how long he's been on top of his game. Low bust potential IMO.

[Slam Dunk 1,442]

Torres's little 'celebration' when he scores is a little look down to the ground, sticking his index fingers out, shaking them, and what looks like muttering something to himself. Not exactly going to pump the crowd up that, is it?

That's probably because he only ever scores when we're already 3 or 4 goals up.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!??! That is precisely how it works! money in on transfers is used to fund incoming transfers... We sell assets to fund the acquisition of other assets!

And yes I do have a Falcao fetish, I like players who score bushels of goals particularly for my club... It can most certainly go sour but the likelihood is lessened when you look at the type of player he is and how long he's been on top of his game. Low bust potential IMO.

No, it's not how it works at all. If a TV costs $1,000 and you sell your old X-Box for $100, does the TV cost $900? No. It still costs $1,000. You just sold something else to get money to help you afford the TV. It doesn't make the TV any cheaper. It's like those Liverpool supporters who claim getting Andy Carroll was good business because it was Torres for Carroll and 15M pounds.Well, Liverpool had 50M pounds and they could have spent it any way they wanted. If we sell Sturridge for 12M pounds, we'll have 12M pounds to spend. We could spend it anywhere. It doesn't make any transfer cheaper or better value. Falcao is going to cost 48M pounds. That would make him, the 6th highest transfer (adjusting for inflation) ever. Chelsea could sell five players and it wouldn't change that. If Chelsea have 50M pounds to spend, they'd be much better off spreading it around in a few areas of need. Falcao does have a low bust potential but he has a high potential for not being worth what we would have to pay. Chelsea would be paying close to 20M pounds every year for Falcao (in amortized transfer payments and wages). To be worth what we would be paying him, Falcao would have to be just about the best striker in the world every year. The chances of that happening are slim.

[Marvin123 527]

i think Malouda off the wage bill will help towards FFP for Falcao too

[Henrique 9,133]

Every player is a gamble actually, Madrid paid 60m for world player of the year Kaka, he's been a disappointment.

Part in bold is true though, but it would be better with almost any other decent striker and not Torres.

To other hand Ronaldo was even more expensive and is easiy their best player since Zidane.

About Mata he wont be the best play maker around untill he learn how to play against physical sides, and with little space.

[Corner 456]

To other hand Ronaldo was even more expensive and is easiy their best player since Zidane.

About Mata he wont be the best play maker around untill he learn how to play against physical sides, and with little space.

He been involved in more goals than any other playmaker in the league this season, and has been the most consistent. David Silva and Santi Cazorla aren't exactly going to be players that can battle physically with Premier League defenders.

[Sheva. 5,373]

To other hand Ronaldo was even more expensive and is easiy their best player since Zidane.

About Mata he wont be the best play maker around untill he learn how to play against physical sides, and with little space.

He gets bullied off the ball too easily, i can agree with that. But regardless he's still a top top playmaker: who scores goals, assists, and is quality on set-pieces.

They're very few players i would trade him for.

And on Madrid, Ronaldo was a good buy for them, but they've had a lot of flops spending big money on good players. Players that didn't quite turn out as well as they had hoped.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

No, it's not how it works at all. If a TV costs $1,000 and you sell your old X-Box for $100, does the TV cost $900? No. It still costs $1,000. You just sold something else to get money to help you afford the TV. It doesn't make the TV any cheaper. It's like those Liverpool supporters who claim getting Andy Carroll was good business because it was Torres for Carroll and 15M pounds.Well, Liverpool had 50M pounds and they could have spent it any way they wanted. If we sell Sturridge for 12M pounds, we'll have 12M pounds to spend. We could spend it anywhere. It doesn't make any transfer cheaper or better value. Falcao is going to cost 48M pounds. That would make him, the 6th highest transfer (adjusting for inflation) ever. Chelsea could sell five players and it wouldn't change that. If Chelsea have 50M pounds to spend, they'd be much better off spreading it around in a few areas of need. Falcao does have a low bust potential but he has a high potential for not being worth what we would have to pay. Chelsea would be paying close to 20M pounds every year for Falcao (in amortized transfer payments and wages). To be worth what we would be paying him, Falcao would have to be just about the best striker in the world every year. The chances of that happening are slim.

Are we talking about football transactions or tv's from future shop??? Wow this is getting annoying!

Mate if we use the 12m to help fund Falcao then yes, we have effectively used the money from a sturridge sale to buy Falcao! Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I was merely asking you if we could trade Sturridge and £36m for Falcao would you do it? All this nonsense about Caroll and Liverpool is utter garbage. If you're answer is no simply say no

[zolayes 14,489]

To other hand Ronaldo was even more expensive and is easiy their best player since Zidane.

About Mata he wont be the best play maker around untill he learn how to play against physical sides, and with little space.

Mata won't be the best until he changes his nationality to Brazillian ..AND if he makes a mistake and becomes a Belgian he will be fucked forever

[Tomo 21,751]

And I would take a good striker, a RB and a CM over Falcao alone any day of the week.

Wallace, De Bruyne, sorted.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Wallace, De Bruyne, sorted.

Still no excuse to spend 50m and 200k/wk that we don't have on one player.