OhForAGreavsie 6,128 Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) Deleted Edited January 24, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guddy69 174 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, OneMoSalah said: Newcastle, Arsenal, City and United all look much better sides than us at present. Much better sides than us. The top 4 as it is now I would say is how it would finish barring a minor miracle. Unless Spurs gatecrash it but they don’t typically start games to the second half and there is some sort of lingering around Conte leaving that may derail the second half of their season IMO. I mean throwing money at all these players is fine but do people honestly think GP is going to get enough performances and momentum to fire us back up the table whilst all of these clubs drop points to make the top 4 this season? Yet alone seeing folk talk about competing to win everything next season based on the signings of a guy who granted looked decent in the 25 mins v Liverpool but wasn’t difficult to do in a pretty poor game, a player we haven’t even seen play for us yet as well as the fact we don’t really play a number 10/second striker at current so will have to change the system again (Nkunku) and Enzo, who we are no closer to signing? I get being optimistic but I would think next seasons targets should be based on how this one ends. If we finish 6th-10th next seasons aims is top 4. Wouldn't think we should be worrying about competing for the PL title in the next 2 seasons or so if Potter is going to still be around, as he will need time to build something and undoubtedly expectations will need to be managed despite a huge influx of cash - although there is excitement around certain players and targets. I don't think anyone expects us to get top 4 this season. I am glad we are getting better players for weak positions though and the management now seem.to know where our weaknesses are, so I am happy and optimistic 😊 OhForAGreavsie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laylabelle 9,743 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 42 minutes ago, guddy69 said: I don't think anyone expects us to get top 4 this season. I am glad we are getting better players for weak positions though and the management now seem.to know where our weaknesses are, so I am happy and optimistic 😊 Nah when predictions were made skysports wise etc no one said us...but did say more 5th...did think be competing for it rather then sat 10 behind halfway but hey ho...see what we can do the rest and onwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pizy 19,319 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Thank God it appears Newcastle will save us from stupidly signing Anthony Gordon. Btw, Newcastle shopping at this sort of level is why I’m very confident that once ourselves and Liverpool get our houses in order for next season we will send Newcastle back down to competing for 6th-8th. As rich as their club is now it’ll take a few years of sustained high finishes before they’re attractive to the top, top talent. They still can’t lure the same level of talent that the Big 6 do. Their fans should enjoy this dream season while it lasts. Once they have 4 competitions to juggle next season they will regress significantly. And mediocre players like Almiron, Joelinton, etc will eventually come back down to Earth to where they’ve been for their entire careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 2,832 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Gordon would be great here. Off the bench at least. I think he is the perfect type of squad player and vital to building a great team. Pacey, robust and athletic. I'd take him for 25-35m. But we have far more pressing needs. Between our current crop of front players, I think we should do well. Vesper 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAPHOD2319 4,975 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Gordon is Mount on the wing. If we wanted that, we already have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper 31,140 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 13 hours ago, bluesman2610 said: I disagree I feel they just need a bigger stage like Enzo did with the World Cup - especially Caqueret why wait until he moves somewhere and has a €70m is or €80m clause when he’s available for €36m now - why was no one bar maybe you calling for Enzo in August I just find it pretty short sighted and funny that when we were linked to Badiashile in the summer people were also calling him pants and no good because we were linked to Gravidol and look how that for us. I did not call Badiashile pants. He has been on some of my acceptable CB target lists for years. As for you inferring I, ME, Vesper, am short-sighted, that is utterly laughable. I am one of the most future forward, long term, big picture, risk analysing posters here. I warned on Roman and the club being seized since the Skripal incident, and have been warning about the stadium and its knee-capping us revenue-wise (plus hurting recruitment aiding facilty prestige) for 10 plus years, ages before I ever joined here. I also 100% stand by my big drop off comment. Hashishi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper 31,140 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 On 23/01/2023 at 19:07, Pizy said: Seriously, where would Gordon even play? Even if we sold Pulisic and Ziyech we’d still have Sterling, Mudryk, Madueke, and CHO on our books. I’d rather bring CHO back than spend silly money on Gordon. Even the idea that he could be turned into a wingback makes no sense as we’re after Gusto who is a natural at the position and is way better than Gordon. Wingback, which as you said, makes no sense if we buy Malo Gusto He is NOT a Chels level winger Onana is a much better prospect for DMF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesman2610 1,430 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 33 minutes ago, Vesper said: I did not call Badiashile pants. He has been on some of my acceptable CB target lists for years. As for you inferring I, ME, Vesper, am short-sighted, that is utterly laughable. I am one of the most future forward, long term, big picture, risk analysing posters here. I warned on Roman and the club being seized since the Skripal incident, and have been warning about the stadium and its knee-capping us revenue-wise (plus hurting recruitment aiding facilty prestige) for 10 plus years, ages before I ever joined here. I also 100% stand by my big drop off comment. I wasn’t saying you weren’t for badaishile or that you were short sighted I making a more general statement of what I witnessed during the last window with our pursuit of a left footed centre back. In fact I’m pretty sure you brought him up first in the forum. I just don’t see it the way you do and that’s fair from what I’ve actually seen of him(Caqueret) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper 31,140 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 On 23/01/2023 at 19:53, 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. Massive restraint of trade lawsuit inbound. FUCK UEFA. Costa19 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper 31,140 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 9 hours ago, TheHulk said: Great work pissing them off a few weeks ago. We are under NO obligation to pay their taxes. If that was the case Neymar to PSG would have been around €300m. If we pay them 120m euros and Enzo agrees to terms, no way can Benfica block it. They would be instantly in contractual violation and would get crushed in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikkiCFC 8,523 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 We rejected Ronaldo. That's positive. Costa19 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhForAGreavsie 6,128 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 3 hours ago, Vesper said: Massive restraint of trade lawsuit inbound. FUCK UEFA. Exactly. The end result of this attempt to restrict what Chelsea have done will be that everybody can do it. The restrictions which already apply in much of Europe will end up being overturned if a restraint of trade case goes to court. Meanwhile, I particularly like the last two words of your message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhForAGreavsie 6,128 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Vesper said: We are under NO obligation to pay their taxes. If that was the case Neymar to PSG would have been around €300m. If we pay them 120m euros and Enzo agrees to terms, no way can Benfica block it. They would be instantly in contractual violation and would get crushed in court. The taxes buying clubs might pay in relation to buyout clauses are those for which the player is liable. I'm not sure that Enzo's applicable tax rate would be 25%, as implied by the €160m gross to produce €120m net story. If it is however, and we refused to cover the taxes, Enzo would net €90m from our €120m and I don't see where he'd get €30m to make up the shortfall. Unless perhaps he accepted a pay reduction over the length of his contract to cover the money. Maybe he would accept such a big reduction, but probably he wouldn't. Certainly the calculations are much more complicated than we, or at least I, realise. Edited January 25, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie Superblue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superblue 6,372 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, Vesper said: Massive restraint of trade lawsuit inbound. FUCK UEFA. 24 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said: Exactly. The end result of this attempt to restrict what Chelsea have done will be that everybody can do it. The restrictions which already apply in much of Europe will end up being overturned if a restraint of trade case goes to court. Meanwhile, I particularly like the last two words of your message. Not sure whether it would be quite as simple as that. UEFA aren't preventing us from offering longer contracts to players, so I'm not sure a restraint of trade is as present as it looks. Given that UEFA's FFP rules aren't as cut and dry as standard accounting rules (i.e. they allow for a number of expenses to be not included in their FFP calculations), I struggle to see where one could argue with them changing certain aspects over time so long as sufficient time is provided and they're not going back to change things retrospectively. I would much prefer that they didn't do this, as it is clearly a plan that Chelsea have mapped out to allow for more spending now to get the team rebuilt. Not quite sure just how much more has or was planned, I would expect the transfer spending to calm down after the summer window anyway. However looking beyond Chelsea for a minute, I can understand UEFA deciding to close the loophole, mainly because there are countries that are restricted to the length of contract that can be given out as this is based on its own country's contract law and legislation, hence it's not leaving a level playing field in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhForAGreavsie 6,128 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, Superblue said: UEFA aren't preventing us from offering longer contracts to players, so I'm not sure a restraint of trade is as present as it looks. Yes, you are right of course. Superblue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Lamps 11,692 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said: The taxes buying clubs might pay in relation to buyout clauses are those for which the player is liable. I'm not sure that Enzo's applicable tax rate would be 25%, as implied by the €160m gross to produce €120m net story. If it is however, and we refused to cover the taxes, Enzo would net €90m from our €120m and I don't see where he'd get €30m to make up the shortfall. Unless perhaps he accepted a pay reduction over the length of his contract to cover the money. Maybe he would accept such a big reduction, but probably he wouldn't. Certainly the calculations are much more complicated than we, or at least I, realise. It is somewhat like that. If we indeed were to make use of the b.o. we would need to give Enzo the full amount, 160m for him to pay off Benfica. From what I have heard, taxes on transfer fees in Spain and Portugal only apply on b.o. clause deals. Now there is a gentlemen's agreement between clubs to settle deals pertaining buy out clauses at just under the full amount, like 119 999 999 in this case so the tax does not apply. Unfortunately,a we might possibly have pissed off Benfica so much they would not abide with the unwritten agreement and insist on the formal process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superblue 6,372 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 35 minutes ago, Magic Lamps said: It is somewhat like that. If we indeed were to make use of the b.o. we would need to give Enzo the full amount, 160m for him to pay off Benfica. From what I have heard, taxes on transfer fees in Spain and Portugal only apply on b.o. clause deals. Now there is a gentlemen's agreement between clubs to settle deals pertaining buy out clauses at just under the full amount, like 119 999 999 in this case so the tax does not apply. Unfortunately,a we might possibly have pissed off Benfica so much they would not abide with the unwritten agreement and insist on the formal process. I would highly doubt that. If we did confirm we'd pay the release clause, I think they'd accommodate for it. It would be foolish on their behalf not to, as our owners aren't going away anytime soon and they don't know in the future when they might want a player from Chelsea, especially on loan if we start tapping more into markets such as South America (and in doing so, essentially stepping on their toes). They will likely also be acutely aware that Portugal is one of the main countries being touted for where we'd like an affiliate club, so dealings with Chelsea's ownership may become more frequent and important in the future too. Fair enough them standing their ground on price, but if we agreed to it, it would be silly for them to spite that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper 31,140 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said: Yes, you are right of course. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper 31,140 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Superblue said: hence it's not leaving a level playing field we already have multiple unlevel practices, such as some nations requiring release clauses, and other nations not requiring them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now