Chelsea Transfers

[OneMoSalah 8,776]

2 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

100m is genuinely as much as they will ever get for him. 

How long is the release clause active for?

Until he leaves Benfica. It’s written into his contract. And if he renews there it will undoubtedly increase.

I don’t know why people think now so more than ever that Benfica will sell Enzo, with just over a week left to go in the window, for anything less than the release clause. Not even considering the circus around the failed attempt at the beginning of the month.

If thats the consensus at the club also then Todd Boehly’s “world class infrastructure” is truly full of morons. Just pay the fee if we want him. We’ve already overspent on Mudryk and Cucurella. 

45 minutes ago, Pizy said:

This is pathetic 🤣🤣🤣 A smart business group finds a clever way of using the established rules to their advantage, a bunch of rival clubs around Europe who weren’t savvy enough to think of it themselves complain to UEFA that Chelsea are ruining everything, and now UEFA is changing the rules.

Well lets be honest if it was any other club it would be complained about also and actions would be taken.

UEFA have always been gearing up towards making FFP much more stricter and better structured over the years and we’ve really given them ammunition to do this. I mean it would be naive to think a club that has spent nearly £500m in not even one full season wouldn’t raise suspicions/make them interested into how they can get around their rules. Particularly considering we've had very little sales.

Then, to look at it another way, it isn’t necessarily going to be feasible forever because not every player will sign a 7 or 8 year contract, particularly players over the age of 25. And eventually we will go for players who are in their prime because we cannot just keep buying u21 footballers forever. 

If it were Newcastle or City doing it and spending say 400-500m (speculative figures but they have the 2 richest owners in the PL) per window on similar deals there would be uproar. Just like the whole issues with their sponsorships etc. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by OneMoSalah

[Pizy 18,368]

So this window well and truly may be the only opportunity for us to sign Enzo for huge money and take advantage of the amortization rules. Even more incentive for us to push like crazy to seal it. Getting him in on a 7-8 year contract and spreading the cost out can only happen this month.

[Vegetable 830]

15 minutes ago, Gundalf said:

Also: where are the people that said we dont have a pull with Potter and our current position??? 😂

Here I am. We are not buying any high-profile players (as this seems to be a TB vision) and I wouldn't necessarily call throwing surreal boatloads of cash on youth/small-club/anonymous players that no other club bids for a "pull" in objective terms and we are getting publicly rejected by a lot of targets.

Still, if those players will form some chemistry and spirit, it's certainly a right step in direction of creating an actual pull. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Vegetable

[Gundalf 804]

9 minutes ago, Vegetable said:

Here I am. We are not buying any high-profile players (as this seems to be a TB vision)

Tbh Chelsea doesnt have a particular good experience with buying high profile players from big clubs. Chelsea has been about buying young hungry players, especially in the most successful years. Drogba, Carvalho, Lampard, Cech, Essien, Robben, Duff, Gudjohnson and so on, all came from smaller clubs, not really considered as absolutely worldclass. I have a sense that we are rebuilding the 2005 to 2009 team atm. Young, hungry, energetic.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Gundalf

[Pizy 18,368]

How much do you want to bet that the chief complainant and whiner to UEFA was Arsenal, btw? They were 100% crying to the authorities after two of their chief targets Mudryk and Félix ended up here.  

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

6 minutes ago, Pizy said:

How much do you want to bet that the chief complainant and whiner to UEFA was Arsenal, btw? They were 100% crying to the authorities after two of their chief targets Mudryk and Félix ended up here.  

You know Liverpool had some massive tears over this.

[MoroccanBlue 5,297]

A RB that has the balls to compete with James. Love that. 

[Pizy 18,368]

4 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

You know Liverpool had some massive tears over this.

Yep. The irony when their new ownership comes in and spends mega money just like us. Although then they’ll use the old “we actually earned our money unlike Chelsea” line.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

40 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

Until he leaves Benfica. It’s written into his contract. And if he renews there it will undoubtedly increase.

I don’t know why people think now so more than ever that Benfica will sell Enzo, with just over a week left to go in the window, for anything less than the release clause. Not even considering the circus around the failed attempt at the beginning of the month.

If thats the consensus at the club also then Todd Boehly’s “world class infrastructure” is truly full of morons. Just pay the fee if we want him. We’ve already overspent on Mudryk and Cucurella. 

Well lets be honest if it was any other club it would be complained about also and actions would be taken.

UEFA have always been gearing up towards making FFP much more stricter and better structured over the years and we’ve really given them ammunition to do this. I mean it would be naive to think a club that has spent nearly £500m in not even one full season wouldn’t raise suspicions/make them interested into how they can get around their rules. Particularly considering we've had very little sales.

Then, to look at it another way, it isn’t necessarily going to be feasible forever because not every player will sign a 7 or 8 year contract, particularly players over the age of 25. And eventually we will go for players who are in their prime because we cannot just keep buying u21 footballers forever. 

If it were Newcastle or City doing it and spending say 400-500m (speculative figures but they have the 2 richest owners in the PL) per window on similar deals there would be uproar. Just like the whole issues with their sponsorships etc. 

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.

[Hamilton 2,120]

Makes you think do all clubs go all-in now for the loophole that Chelsea found?

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

1 hour ago, Costa19 said:

Maybe this is the reason Gusto & Enzo (sounds like a fecking cartoon lol) rumours kicked off today? 

Good shout.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

1 hour ago, Pizy said:

This is pathetic 🤣🤣🤣 A smart business group finds a clever way of using the established rules to their advantage, a bunch of rival clubs around Europe who weren’t savvy enough to think of it themselves complain to UEFA that Chelsea are ruining everything, and now UEFA is changing the rules.

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?

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

1 hour ago, DDA said:

Great signing. Very pleased with this one.

Has Romano said anything about an agreement with Lyon?

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

1 minute ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Has Romano said anything about an agreement with Lyon?

Not yet

[Superblue 6,370]

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.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

 

[Pizy 18,368]

13 minutes ago, Superblue said:

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 ONLY way to get those two is to loan them back until summer I’d do it. But Enzo and Gusto are two players that would help us massively in the Champions League this season. We get Reece and Kante fit, Mudryk and Félix settle well, and if we sign Enzo I’d fancy us against anyone.

Winning the thing this seasons will be our only way to CL footy next year. May as well go all out.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]