Chelsea Transfers

[NikkiCFC 8,327]

2 hours ago, DDA said:

Enzo is on another planet in comparison to Rice. Its not even fair to compare Enzo within the same bracket. Rice is a workhorse, good at defending and bang average on the ball, almost a transit van of football.

Cannot believe what I'm reading. It's like comparing prime Essien and Steve Sidwell. 

2 hours ago, Pizy said:

The main thing people have to take into account about Rice vs these other options that doesn’t get mentioned often is that there’s no settling in period or adaptation for Rice. He’s got basically zero potential to fail or be a bust since he has already been performing at the top level in this league in a very specific role that can translate to any team really. He’s not someone who is asked to create or be a match winner or be a goal scorer. You can easily plug him into any of the current top teams and he’d be solid.

With players coming from another country and league it’s always a gamble on whether they can quickly adapt. And at over £100m you may want to minimize the risk and go for the safer choice.

Look what we’re experiencing now with Koulibaly. He was a beast last season in Italy and a dominant CB. Comes to the PL and has looked almost lost at times dealing with the dramatically quicker pace of the play. Imagine spending £100m or more and going through this. Definitely something to consider.

You also have to consider that with Rice is impossible to play attractive, offensive football. I mean do people really believe that if Mount and Rice are our 2 of 3 starting midfielders for next 5-10 years we can be successful? That team not only would not be able to fight for title but with the way some teams are progressing like Arsenal and Newcastle cannot see even reaching top4. 

And yes, Jorginho can absolutely unlock defence with one single pass. 

[Tomo 21,751]

10 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Y’all hate Rice, damn. 🤣🤣🤣

It's nothing to do with hate (certainly not on my part anyway) I just don't think he suits the system we play atall.

I remember last year when I made a similar argument with Lukaku and I was told it doesn't matter because he scores goals.

23 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I didn't watch the world cup and, up to now, have avoided watching video of Enzo but, blimey, I better watch some now. 

Haha, it was a bit in jest but regardless I feel if we sign Rice we will be needing something more within a couple of years. Watching him then in comparison watching Enzo, Bruno G etc at our rivals will really hammer that feeling home.

12 minutes ago, DDA said:

It's not because he doesn't have a Brazillian name either.

I absolutely despise it when that narrative is pulled out and it's usually to defend allright in some areas but flawed in others players like Rice or Cahill.

[Vesper 30,202]

as much as some people do not rate Rice (I rate him, but not at the top top of my wish list)

I DO NOT want Pickford as our keeper!

ffs

go for all of these before him (Plus we have Slonina eventually)
  
Jan Oblak 
Emiliano Martínez 
Dominik Livakovic
Giorgi Mamardashvili 
Illan Meslier
Odysseas Vlachodimos   

younger

Matvey Safonov 
Anatoliy Trubin
Maarten Vandevoordt
 

[NikkiCFC 8,327]

7 hours ago, OneMoSalah said:

Also just like we aren’t going to sign Joao Felix on loan.

I mean why would Atletico loan out someone who cost them upwards of 100m when it is clear he is open to leaving and they are open to a sale? Doesnt benefit then at all - I mean look at the whole Saul situation here, where we had an option to buy him, they aren't falling for that shite again. 

Because no one wants to buy him. 

 

[Magic Lamps 11,692]

While I do not believe Enzo will happen and generally dislike shedding 120m on a single player he is the type of midfielder I could most likely live with spending  a fortune on.

He impacts the pitch on both ends and thus has a better lever to enhance our overall performances. When you spend 100m on a striker  like Lukaku you want to see goals and once he hits a barren spell or misses some good chances, he is already labeled a flop and has to dig himself out of a whole. Similar with goalies or defenders when they commit a stupid mistake that costs a goal, they become a joke like Maguire. the perception is very black and white, the pressure is all negative. Not everybody can deal with that. For a midfielder, esp one who is involved in defence and attack - unless you turn in a Saul or Bakayoko  performance regularly - there is always a way back. You can redeem a missed pass with a great tackle or a wayward shot with a high pressing run. Look at Mount. Has played like a zombie for most of the season but a nice goal yesterday and for most casual Chelsea fans all is forgotten. The human brain likes simplicity and all-action midfielders simply have more tools to blur the lines. This does not make them better players but it makes them constantly face less negative pressure and hence may we.l make a big money signing more likely to succeed.

[Reddish-Blue 2,509]

2 hours ago, Pizy said:

Y’all hate Rice, damn. 🤣🤣🤣

For the price tag that West ham want, absolutely. 

Inflation or not, it would be like watching West Ham rob us blind if we ended up paying anywhere near 80 million for Declan Rice. 

Fabinho was 50 million, Rodri was 60 million....there's no way Declan is worth more than that but West Ham will just use Grealish's fee as the benchmark. 

[milka 3,393]

Chelsea have discussed Dominik Livakovic. (Simon Jones -@MailSport)
 

 

 

[Hashishi 148]

 

Very diplomatic answer

 

[OneMoSalah 8,886]

1 hour ago, NikkiCFC said:

Because no one wants to buy him. 

 

Seen somewhere reporting it would cost £15-16m all in for half a seasons loan fee and his wages for any club who wanted him. Then theres the will there be or wont their be an obligation to buy. Think the express already reporting Todd Boehly considering adding it…. which again, not convincing. 

Anyway, 33 goals in 129 games for Atletico. Then 1 impressive World Cup performance and another half decent game. Would say avoid. 

Funnily enough the clubs he’s mainly linked with, us, United and Arsenal all either have injuries to CFs (Jesus & Broja) or just got rid of a striker (Ronaldo). Then Newcastle and Aston Villa are also linked. 

[chelsea_4_eva 1,182]

Is Badiashile that much better than Colwill? I hear he has been impressing Brighton fans with his performances...

[Hashishi 148]

6 hours ago, Vesper said:

IF there is no tax liability and those reports were bullshit

then I do buy into the possibility we may be offering more than the  €120m realise clause in order to get favourable repayment terms

it also could be both things combined

Fabrizo has basically confirmed this on YouTube. Paying it all in one go will give us problems with FFP. 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Hashishi

[Vesper 30,202]

29 minutes ago, Hashishi said:

Fabrizo has basically confirmed this on YouTube. Paying it all in one go will give us problems with FFP. 

 

He said Benfica want it done the first few days in January IF a club is going to trigger his clause and he agrees

they do not want to drag it out into late in the January window

 

 

[Vesper 30,202]

Chelsea to discuss personal terms with Enzo Fernandez after agreeing to pay huge release clause for Argentina star

https://www.lfclive.net/news/Chelsea-to-discuss-personal-terms-with-Enzo-Fernandez-after-agreeing-to-pay-huge-release-clause-for-Argentina-star-1163862

Chelsea will enter personal talks with Enzo Fernandez after agreeing to pay Benfica's huge release clause in their bid to sign him in January. Chelsea however appear to have blown their rivals out of the water, agreeing to pay the midfielder's €120million release clause. According to The Sun, Chelsea have met with both Benfica president Rui Costa and super-agent Jorge Mendes, with the Blues confirming they will have no issue in meeting that huge release clause. It now leaves Chelsea free to open talks with the player and his representatives as they seek to agree personal terms.
 

 

[Vesper 30,202]

IF we get Enzo, that surely closes the door on Bellingham and also on any effort to try and pull de Jong from Barca

then it is down, IMHO, to buying either Rice or Caicedo, two entirely different types of players

Caicedo, (along with the crazy hard to pull Barella), are the two closest things atm to Kante

Rice is a trad DMF cruncher, and he seems to have dropped off, as West Ham have went to shit

[TheHulk 2,467]

35 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Chelsea to discuss personal terms with Enzo Fernandez after agreeing to pay huge release clause for Argentina star

https://www.lfclive.net/news/Chelsea-to-discuss-personal-terms-with-Enzo-Fernandez-after-agreeing-to-pay-huge-release-clause-for-Argentina-star-1163862

Chelsea will enter personal talks with Enzo Fernandez after agreeing to pay Benfica's huge release clause in their bid to sign him in January. Chelsea however appear to have blown their rivals out of the water, agreeing to pay the midfielder's €120million release clause. According to The Sun, Chelsea have met with both Benfica president Rui Costa and super-agent Jorge Mendes, with the Blues confirming they will have no issue in meeting that huge release clause. It now leaves Chelsea free to open talks with the player and his representatives as they seek to agree personal terms.
 

 

We aren't getting him.

Was to good to be true.

[Strike 7,492]

15 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

We aren't getting him.

Was to good to be true.

They will try to do the same as the Nkunku deal - offer more than release clause but on better payment terms.

[Vesper 30,202]

1 hour ago, TheHulk said:

We aren't getting him.

Was to good to be true.

that is why we are offering over the release clause, so we can stagger it out

and that tweeter name drops Romano all the time and when you go look, Romano never has said exactly what that tweeter claims he said

Edited December 29, 2022 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,202]

 

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2012/7/30/3204610/on-Chelsea-fc-ffp-and-amortization-of-transfer-fees

Today we're going to look specifically at transfer fees and how they'll be accounted for under FFP. The rule as designed by UEFA allows clubs 2 alternatives in how to report transfer fees. The first method would be to simply record all transfer fees as expenses, which is the easiest way to report figures. When you buy a player, you would simply record the fee as a 1 time expense. When you sell a player, the fee would be a 1 time credit. Loss or profit would become a simple matter of subtracting sales from purchases and looking at the total. After the jump I've laid out what Chelsea's first 3 year monitoring period would look like using that specific method.

Two things to note here. First, all figures displayed are in millions and have been rounded. Second, I don't have access to the specifics of all sales and purchases, so these figures reflect the most educated estimates we have. The data may be off by a few million pounds in either direction, but overall you get a pretty good idea of where we stand by looking at the chart below.

The expensing method has it's good and bad points, but my guess is that basically nobody will show their accounting using this method. Writing off transfer fees as a 1 time expense creates wild variances in profit and loss. While this method would allow for quick fixes to large losses by selling players, it would also make it very difficult to consistently break even. Clubs using this method would likely show seasons of large profit and large loss at varying points of their accounting, and that would seem to make consistent compliance with FFP far more difficult. Because of that fact, I think it's safe to assume that Chelsea and every other club out there will take the other option that UEFA is offering, amortizing transfer costs*.

*Clubs can't swap between methods from 1 season to the next, they have to report using the same methods every season.

By amortizing transfer fees, UEFA is allowing clubs to spread the cost of the purchase over the life of the contract. As a simple example, a player purchased for £10 million and signed to a 5 year deal would have his transfer fee spread out over the 5 years he was under contract. That's £2 million per year, nice and simple.

What happens if a player extends though? We'll use the above £10 million player as our example again. That player finishes the second year of his contract with the club, and the club and player reach an agreement that extends the contract for 2 more seasons. At that point we take the £6 million that has yet to be accounted for in the books ( £4 million has already been accounted for in years 1 and 2) and split that up over the 5 years the players is now contracted to the club. This player will now cost £1.2 million against FFP for the remainder of his contract. If he extends again, you'd simply repeat that process using whatever amount is yet to be accounted for.

Below you can find the chart of how Chelsea's transfer spending would look under the amortization method of FFP accounting. You'll note that both Ramires and David Luiz extended this season, and their transfer costs counted against the books this year have dropped accordingly.

That looks a lot better, no? Using the amortization method of accounting, there is basically no chance that Chelsea fail to comply during the initial accounting periods of FFP. I've used exactly the same figures for transfer fees, but simply broken them down over the life of the contract. Using the amortization method, Chelsea are showing about £163 million less that they've spent in transfer fees for the first accounting period. This brings up an interesting dilemma though, as how do we account for player sales using this method.

First, there are 2 types of player sales. Academy products don't have transfer fees to account for, so they are very easy to show. Simply take whatever you received for the player in question and add it to your income. Players signed prior to 2010 are being accounted using this method as well, although there likely won't be significant fees from those players going forward.

What if we sold a guy that counts against FFP though? What do you do with the portion of their transfer fee still to be accounted for? It's fairly simple actually, but it does take a little math. Let's use Yossi Benayoun in this example, as he's likely to be sold this summer anyway. Let's say we sell Yossi for £1 million. We had Yossi on the books for £2 million this season. We'd take that total, subtract the £1 million from the sale, and Yossi would cost £1 million against the books this season.

So what if the player we sell is not in the last year of their deal? For this example we'll look at Fernando Torres. Torres through his first season and a half has seen £13.5 million go against the books. He's got 4 years and £36.5 million left to account for. Let's say we manged to sell Torres for £20 million tomorrow. How would we account for that? Well, we'd take all of the £36.5 million still owed to Torres, subtract the £20 million we just got for him, and record the £16.5 million as a 1 time loss for the 2012/13 season. Torres would never again count against the FFP books, we'd take the 1 time hit and move on.

This math would work for profits as well. If we take the same player (Torres) and sell him for the same £50 million we initially paid for him, the accounting works the same. We'd take the £36.5 million still needing to be accounted for on the books, subtract the £50 million we just sold the player for, and put the resulting £13.5 million in profit towards 2012/13. It's a 1 time profit, and Torres would disappear from the books entirely after the 2012/13 season.

This method of accounting for player sales helps to highlight the genius of what Chelsea are currently doing. We've spent a lot of money thus far this summer, no question about it. But using a player for 4-5 seasons and then selling him at a high point of his value is going to cut out a massive portion of our amortized transfer spending. Buying assets with resale value will literally allow Chelsea to continue spending on the transfer market in the future, buying guys like Luka Modric, Hulk, and Cavani just won't. Selling just 1 or 2 players for £15 million apiece can fund a pretty massive spending spree in the short term, as the sale of Yuri Zhirkov is enough to offset this season's amortized hit of every single player we've bought in the last 2 transfer windows combined. Buying young and selling off the surplus later will help Chelsea remain compliant, as it's actually a sustainable model.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Vesper

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]

 

[Vesper 30,202]

7 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

Barca scouting:

Read online whatever player Chelsea is linked with, then run and try and buy him first

Barca scout:

Edited December 29, 2022 by Vesper