Chelsea Transfers

[ZAPHOD2319 4,801]

Rival tears are the best!! The irony of a Man City fan demanding a financial investigation. 😂

 

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

3 hours ago, milka said:

 

That's the most nothing statement imaginable. "Breaking: Chelsea directors could order a pizza in Covent Garden."

[guddy69 174]

3 hours ago, YorkshireBlue said:

It's deffo not fake lol 

my ex used to squirt all over the place...I tried to stay at her house rather than mine, too messy 😊

[Pizy 18,852]

If we land Enzo this week and Arse fail to get Caicedo I could honestly see us getting him in the summer as well if we sell the likes of RLC, Gallagher and let Jorginho and Zakaria leave.

Enzo + Caicedo would be nuts.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

4 hours ago, TheHulk said:

 

The above buyout clause element of the story sounds convincing to me.

Someone, I can't remember who but thank you, posted a link to the rules governing the tax treatment of buyout clause transfers. If I correctly understood what I read, then the tax situation of both the buying, and the selling, Club is more favourable when the deal is completed without formally triggering the clause. I wrote some time ago suggesting that the negotiation would be based on Benfica wanting to split the savings with Chelsea.

I'm not convinced that the €160m figure is accurate but if we use it as an example, Chelsea would save about €40m by completing the deal as a standard transfer. My two guesses were, and are, that Benfica are asking for a sizeable chunk of that saving, and that this process explains why Chelsea paid over the buyout clause for Nkunku.

Edited January 29, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

3 hours ago, Vesper said:

bullshit

is mostly pee forced by extremely pelvic bladder manipulation, or, often in porn, they load the girl up with water via a douche then film it

I am getting mansplained about female sex now, LOLOLOL

 

3 hours ago, YorkshireBlue said:

I don't remember loading up any 1 with water lol but if it's pee it's pee us lads couldn't care less at that point lol

This "book" that I'm reading just took a very strange turn. 🙂

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

2 hours ago, lluubbeenn said:

Jude Soonsup-Bell is going to spurs. Selling to them is a bit iffy

Good luck to the lad.

[Superblue 6,372]

14 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The above buyout clause element of the story sounds convincing to me.

Someone, I can't remember who but thank you, posted a link to the rules governing the tax treatment of buyout clause transfers. If I correctly understood what I read, then the tax situation of both the buying, and the selling, Club is more favourable when the deal is completed without formally triggering the clause. I wrote some time ago suggesting that the negotiation would be based on Benfica wanting to split the savings with Chelsea.

I'm not convinced that the €160m figure is accurate but if we use it as an example, Chelsea would save about €40m by completing the deal as a standard transfer. My two guesses were, and are, that Benfica are asking for a sizeable chunk of that saving, and that this process explains why Chelsea paid over the buyout clause for Nkunku.

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.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

42 minutes ago, Superblue said:

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 exactly.

Funding a player to trigger his buyout clause is treated as paying him wages. Wages must be accounted, in full, for FFP in the season they are paid. 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie

[TheHulk 2,404]

Romano milking it with the tweets and no update.

The only interesting thing is that Chelsea schelduled meeting why would Benfica care about the meeting if they only want the release clause.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

What a good day for Chelsea rumours yesterday was. Much less newsworthy than all the Enzo talk obviously, but just as important to the team, CFCW have been linked with Arsenal's Katie McCabe.

She's a left-sided player with great physical and technical attributes and the habit for collecting yellow cards. She even managed to pick one up against us a couple of weeks ago despite only playing for  a few minutes. Nominally a midfielder, McCabe can play anywhere down the left. If she joins I expect it would be to become our starting left back. She has apparently asked for permission to speak to Chelsea but with 18 months remaining on her deal I'd say there is zero chance this goes anywhere. Arsenal would have to have lost all of their marbles, bought some more and lost those too, to sell such a valuable player, in mid-season no less, to their biggest rival rival.

[Pizy 18,852]

2 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

Romano milking it with the tweets and no update.

The only interesting thing is that Chelsea schelduled meeting why would Benfica care about the meeting if they only want the release clause.

If we are willing to pay the €120m why would it be up to Rui Costa? Can they refuse to let him leave even if the clause is payed?

[TheHulk 2,404]

1 minute ago, Pizy said:

If we are willing to pay the €120m why would it be up to Rui Costa? Can they refuse to let him leave even if the clause is payed?

We don't want to pay the release clause but the value of it in installments.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

10 minutes ago, Pizy said:

If we are willing to pay the €120m why would it be up to Rui Costa? Can they refuse to let him leave even if the clause is payed?

I think it must be because Chelsea are willing to pay the buyout clause amount, but are not willing to formally trigger the clause given the tax implications. As such, it becomes a "normal" transfer negotiation. This means Benfica could say no, but it also means they can ask for more than €120m, and this is apparently exactly what they are doing.

Edited January 30, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie

[Pizy 18,852]

3 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I think it must be because Chelsea are willing to pay the buyout clause amount, but are not willing to formally trigger the clause given the tax implications. As such, it becomes a "normal" transfer negotiation. This means Benfica could say no, but it also means they can ask for more than €120m, and this is apparently exactly what they are doing.

So this could still continue to be an ugly situation if Benfica dig their heels in. 😒

We have to hope face to face negotiations tomorrow can soften their stance.