Jump to content

Chelsea Transfers


J.F.
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Vesper said:

we already have multiple unlevel practices, such as some nations requiring release clauses, and other nations not requiring them

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

Disagree, it DOES have a negative material effect, as the disallowing of longer contract-derived mitigation of FFP strictures precludes previously allowed accounting procedures- Also it is clearly aimed at singling us out, which shows deliberate disparate impact.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DDA said:

Rui Costa is just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn at this point.. it doesn't matter what way you look at it. . It's a bad business move to turn anything over 80m down.

Doesn't want to upset the Benfica fans. I get it. 

Enzo is integral for them as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DDA said:

Rui Costa is just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn at this point.. it doesn't matter what way you look at it. . It's a bad business move to turn anything over 80m down.

Remember they will owe 25% of whatever they get for Enzo to River Plate.

If he was sold for €80M they only get €60M of that. While it's still €45M profit for six months I doubt that would be anywhere near enough to get him in the middle of a season so might as well stand their ground and improve their chances of winning the league title and having a decent UCL run with Enzo in the team. They would no doubt get the same €80m for him in the summer if it came to that.

Nothing wrong with Benfica's stance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

He's got an 18 month deal remaining what the fuck are Lyon smoking. 

Every club that has a player we’re after is going to demand massive money going forward having seen the cash we’ve thrown around since Boehly came in. In this case he’s their star youngster and a key player so it’s only right they ask for a hefty fee.

In my opinion, it’s kind of justifiable for us to pay this sort of money for him. We desperately need a rotation option for James, he’s only 19 and already very good, and has the potential to be top class. With Azpi surely leaving in the summer we may as well get ahead of the competition for him (which will be significant) and sign him now when he’s apparently super keen to join us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pizy said:

Hopefully some Malo Gusto progress or update today. Be nice to get him in in time for Fulham so Reece can have even longer to rehab and be eased into the team.

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.

Edited by OhForAGreavsie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...