Chelsea Transfers

[Vesper 30,224]

Omorodion, Duran, Osimhen - Six transfer targets Chelsea didn't sign and how they're doing now

Chelsea signed plenty of players during the summer transfer window, but Enzo Maresca was given just one new striker

https://www.football.london/Chelsea-fc/transfer-news/omorodion-duran-osimhen-six-transfer-30069542

Chelsea were heavily linked with numerous big names during the summer transfer window – but not all of them penned deals at Stamford Bridge. With Enzo Maresca eager to bolster his squad, the Blues welcomed 11 new faces to Cobham training ground; three of which were sent back out on loan.

Out of the eight who remained in west London, only one was a striker – Marc Guiu, who was prised from Barcelona for just £5m. Despite the 18-year-old's impressive performances in pre-season, Chelsea were still thought to be in the market for a new frontman up until the eleventh hour.

Then, on deadline day, the Blues wrapped up a deal for Jadon Sancho, ditching any plan of getting their hands on a striker. So, with that being said, football.london has looked at the six strikers Chelsea nearly signed but didn't in the summer transfer window.

Samu Omorodion

Chelsea were offered to sign Joao Felix by Jorge Mendes after a deal for Samu Omorodion collapsed, football.london understands. The 20-year-old striker, who once looked destined to join the Blues, went on to join Porto instead, where he's enjoyed an excellent vein of form.

Omorodion has featured six times for the Portuguese giants this season, scoring seven goals – four in the Primeira Liga and three in the Europa League. While Chelsea raised eyebrows by pursuing the Spain Under-21 international, the club's interest has been vindicated by his statement performance against Manchester United on Thursday night.

 

READ MORE: Arsenal given Thomas Partey transfer deadline as Mikel Arteta makes true feelings clear

READ MORE: Enzo Maresca sends forgotten Chelsea star clear transfer message as 'agreement' revealed

Jhon Duran

Jhon Duran was heavily linked with a move to Chelsea for some time before his recent rise to superstardom, but the club never bit the bullet. According to The Telegraph in January 2024, the Blues were considering a bid for the 20-year-old striker after Aston Villa rejected an enquiry from West Ham.

Then, in the summer, football.london understood that Chelsea cooled their interest in Duran. It's believed that the two clubs were in talks, but the Colombian's wage demands were thought to be 'too high' and there were some concerns over his attitude.

Victor Osimhen

football.london understands that Chelsea submitted a bid for Victor Osimhen on the day before the summer transfer window deadline. It's believed that the Blues offered to sign the 25-year-old on a season-long loan, which included an obligation-to-buy clause.

Despite the west Londoners' best efforts, Paul Winstanley and Laurence Stewart couldn't wrap up a deal for the Nigeria international. football.london understands that Al-Ahli were in talks with Osimhen, with the Saudi Pro League club thought to have presented him an 'extortionate salary'.

Instead, he decided to join Galatasaray on loan from Napoli for the remainder of the season. The Italian club confirmed that they reached an agreement with Osimhen to retain the option to extend his contract until June 2027.

A new deal would also reputedly reduce his release clause to €75m (£63m) from €130m (£110m) – which is almost in line with the €80m (£67m) offer from Al Ahli that Napoli reportedly accepted. Osimhen has hit the ground running in Turkey, scoring two and setting up four in his first four games.

Jonathan David

football.london understands that Chelsea opened talks with Jonathan David's representatives over a possible move to Stamford Bridge in June. It's believed that the 24-year-old striker was eager to leave Lille after four years at the club.

David was 'strongly considered' and negotiations took place, but a deal failed to materialise. The Canada international is now also enjoying a brilliant vein of form, scoring eight goals in his last 12 games.

Sehrou Guirassy

Sehrou Guirassy was mooted a potential target for many clubs in Europe after helping Stuttgart finish second in the Bundesliga and claim Champions League qualification. Despite missing a chunk of the campaign while away at the Africa Cup of Nations, the 28-year-old still managed to score 28 goals in 28 games in the German top-flight.

He joined Borussia Dortmund on a four-year deal in the summer. Unsurprisingly, Guirassy has also done well this term, netting six in his first five appearances.

Ivan Toney

After failing to find a new club in Europe, Ivan Toney joined Al-Ahli. Brentford accepted a bid worth around £40m for the 28-year-old late into the summer transfer window.

Toney was, in fact, one of several players that Chelsea considered signing ahead of deadline day, football.london understands. The England international was viewed as a much cheaper and more attainable alternative to Osimhen, who Chelsea had previously held talks about.

He has played six games for his new club so far, netting two goals and laying on one assist.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,224]

Exclusive: Real Madrid turn attention to signing Aston Villa’s Jhon Duran

https://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-real-madrid-turn-attention-to-signing-aston-villas-jhon-duran/

Real Madrid are keeping close tabs on Aston Villa man-of-the-moment Jhon Duran, sources have told Football Insider.

Real’s recruitment team have been wowed by the 20-year-old Colombia international’s stunning start to the season at Villa.

The Spanish giants have a “concrete” interest in Duran ahead of the January transfer window and will continue to monitor his situation.

The youngster hit the headlines across Europe with a stunning 79th-minute lob over Manuel Neuer to secure a shock 1-0 Champions League win over Bayern Munich on Wednesday night.

Duran has scored a goal every 82.78 minutes in the Premier League since joining from MLS side Chicago Fire back in January 2023, eclipsing Erling Haaland’s minutes-per-goal ratio of 85 minutes.

Aston Villa forward Jhon Duran a target for Real Madrid

He has taken his game to new heights with six goals in just 297 minutes across nine appearances in all competitions for Villa so far this season, with all those strikes coming as a substitute.

Emery’s side paid £14.75million plus a potential £3.3million in bonuses to Chicago Fire for Duran in January of last year, tying him down until July 2028.

Villa are fifth in the Premier League with four wins, one draw, and one defeat in their opening six Premier League games.

Meanwhile, by their incredibly high standards, it’s been an underwhelming start to the season for Real, already three points behind rivals Barcelona at the summit in the race for the La Liga title.

They’ve struggled on the continent as well, falling to defeat in their trip to French side Lille, courtesy of a Jonathan David penalty just before half-time.

In other news, Aston Villa are working on January signing in one position – Ex-Villa scout.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,224]

Exclusive: Chelsea coaches ‘alarmed’ by Kendry Paez as new footage analysed

https://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-Chelsea-coaches-alarmed-by-kendry-paez-as-new-footage-analysed/

Chelsea are “very worried” about the development of wonderkid signing Kendry Paz, sources have told Football Insider.

The 17-year-old will sign for Chelsea in a £17.2million move once he turns 18 in May 2025, but he has been caught in some off-field skirmishes.

The Londoners are “alarmed” by Paez’s lack of development on the pitch since his signing last year.

Sources have told Football Insider that the attacking midfielder isn’t progressing as quickly as coaches hoped amid new concerns about whether he will be ready for the Premier League next year.

Chelsea have been scrutinising all of his footage, and he has not been as effective in recent months as the Premier League giants had hoped.

Paez made 32 appearances in all competitions last season, scoring seven goals and providing five assists.

Chelsea had been impressed by Kendry Paez’s performances

The Blues agreed to a deal to sign the teenager from Independiente del Valle in the summer of 2023 when he was just 16 years old.

Paez became the youngest-ever South American to score in a World Cup qualifier last October after being assisted by his future Chelsea teammate, Moises Caicedo.

However, off-the-field antics have led to him being warned by Ecuador manager Sebastian Beccacece about his behaviour.

 

Chelsea are currently thriving in all competitions after making an impressive start to life under Enzo Maresca.

The new Blues boss has proven he can be ruthless with players, cutting out the likes of Raheem Sterling and Ben Chilwell.

[Vesper 30,224]

The Diarra Ruling could change football forever – but it’s big clubs like Chelsea & Man Utd that will benefit

https://www.3addedminutes.com/sport/football/Chelsea/diarra-ruling-change-football-benefit-4810621

The Diarra case means that FIFA may be forced to change the way transfers work so that players can move more easily - but who benefits?

Depending on who you listen to, the success of the Diarra Case will either change football as we know it or achieve precious little. Between a likely appeal and what will likely be lengthy wrangling over what rules changes are actually required, we probably won’t see an immediate impact. But whatever the eventual outcome of this supposed successor to the Bosman Ruling, it’s likely to be the biggest clubs that are the real winners once again.

The roots of the case date back 10 years. Former Real Madrid, Chelsea and Portsmouth midfielder Lassana Diarra was playing for Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow when his contract was broken ahead of an attempted move to Charleroi in Belgium. Lokomotiv Moscow scotched the move when they insisted that the value of Diarra’s contract with them was owed by player and club – and the deal fell through as a result.

It's the mechanisms that prevented Diarra from moving freely between clubs that were being protested in a lawsuit which escalated from Belgium to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – and a ruling announced on Friday determined that some of the rules set by FIFA which govern transfer dealings are unlawful, and both unduly restrict players’ freedom of movement between jobs and restrict cross-border competition.

What the ruling means

There are a great many specifics to work through and the case is in any case subject to appeal in the Belgian courts, but the ruling effectively demands that FIFA remove barriers to players breaking their contracts with clubs and ‘quitting’ just like the rest of us.

As it stands, there are various rules standing between players just leaving their existing contract and signing elsewhere. Firstly, both player and new club are currently jointly liable for the cost of the existing contract. Secondly, a ban on registering new players can be imposed by FIFA under certain circumstances. Thirdly and finally, national associations are expected to withhold clearance to play for players in such cases. All of these mechanisms upholding the old transfer system are specifically called out as illegal in the CJEU’s ruling.

In theory, this is a huge victory for the players, and it has been welcomed by umbrella players’ union FIFPRO. While the ruling does not impose any specific solution on FIFA, it was effectively force football’s governing body to change the regulations such that players have the means to quit their clubs and move to other teams. It should give players more power to determine their career paths and erode the ability of clubs to hang on to players when they want to move.

That’s why the ruling has been hailed – or damned – in some quarters as a New Bosman Ruling. There’s an interpretation of the ruling, should it hold up on appeal, that says players can simply leave their clubs and take up more enticing offers elsewhere as and when suits them. It is highly unlikely to be as straightforward as that, though.

Although the CJEU ruling determined that FIFA’s existing rules are unlawful, it does not suggest that it cannot impose some reasonable restrictions on players moving clubs repeatedly for bigger and better contracts. Some mechanisms which already exist to protect clubs may well become used more extensively, for instance, such as minimum fee release clauses, which are mandatory on all playing contracts in Spain, could perhaps be extended to the players themselves as well.

There could also be room for a tribunal system to determine fair compensation amounts for players who wish to leave ‘on a Diarra’, similar to that currently used to figure out compensation for clubs when youth players are poached now. A full-blown free-for-all is exceptionally unlikely given the wording of the ruling, even if the exact shape of the new regulations is indeterminate as it stands. Essentially, FIFA doesn’t necessarily have to make sure there aren’t any barriers at all to players moving freely between clubs, just to make sure that any barriers which do exist don’t restrict that freedom to an undue extent. FIFA themselves seem to believe that they only need to make small adjustments to the existing rules, although whether the courts agree with that assessment remains to be seen.

Either way, the real winners won’t necessarily be the players, although they will of course benefit and a new system could make it easier for players to get out of especially unfortunate situations at clubs that are maltreating them in some way. The real winners, as is almost always the case when a closed capitalist economic system becomes deregulated, are likely to be the same wealthy clubs who are hold most of the power.

How the case could change football

One thing that FIFA’s regulations did achieve was to provide some protection to smaller clubs, allowing them to set the terms by which their best players would leave to bigger, richer teams. As a long as a player was under contract with a team, they could determine what their required transfer fee was. Now, they may get an automated amount of compensation or even nothing at all, at the most extreme end of the possible consequences of the ruling, and nor would they enjoy any control over the timing of a player’s departure outside of transfer windows, which seem unlikely to be affected by this judgement.

Now, players may well be able to force a move as and when they wish – great for the players, even better for the wealthier sides who don’t have to jump through so many hoops. With protections for smaller teams reduced, we could see even less money filtering down the footballing pyramid globally. And the amount filtering down was already far too little across the board.

There is almost no question that if the Diarra case changes anything, the teams which benefit the most will be the wealthiest who can exploit it, not least because their own players are less likely to want to force moves away of their own as they’ll already be close to the top of the earnings potential and playing for more prestigious clubs. The only real question is the extent to which the transfer rules end up changing and the degree by which the super-rich can exploit it.

Just look at the transfer dealings undertaken by free-spending sides like Chelsea or Manchester United, the clubs who sign the most players for the most money year in and year out. As it stands, the clubs they want to take players from have tools with which to fight back and at the very least ensure that they get top dollar. If fees started to be decided by a tribunal or the players’ freedom to move positions became considerably easier in some other way, then they those smaller sides may not have access to such a luxury.

In some quarters, Chelsea have been used as an example of how big clubs could be negatively impacted - after all, if players do end up being able to move much more easily, then those eight- and nine-year contracts that they’ve been dishing out suddenly become a lot less valuable. In the short term, certainly, a significant shift in players’ freedoms to break contracts could certainly hurt a club like Chelsea that have invested heavily in a model based on a potentially-defunct transfer system. But in the long run, wealthy teams having the capacity to poach players with ease will disproportionately benefit the sides able to offer the highest wages and meatiest signing bonuses.

Significant changes may also serve to dissuade smaller clubs from investing heavily in youth development. Academies are already high-cost methods of producing players for the first team and the only way a lot of clubs can justify them down the league ladder is by earning money from player sales when youngsters come good. If that income stream is diminished, then many clubs may reduce funding for their academies or close them altogether, as several EFL clubs already have in a turbulent financial climate.

The only thing that’s almost certain is that if the Diarra case gets through the appeals process, then clubs will soon have the ability to buy players out of their contracts without FIFA or national FAs being able to prevent the player from being registered or given international clearance. That can only tilt the scales in the direction of the clubs with the most cash.

Of course, most of us would be appalled by rules which prevented us from, say, leaving a small provincial company to take up a more prestigious job at a major multinational in the same industry. Professional footballers, as well-paid as those at the top of the game may be, should plainly still have the same fundamental employment rights as the rest of us, and it is unsurprising that the traditional rules of the transfer market were not judged to be sacrosanct or more important than EU employment law. But the playing field of sports business is hardly level in the first place, and this may well tilt things even further. We are rapidly reaching a point at which asking smaller clubs to battle their way to the top through shrewd spending and development of their own players is akin to asking a local greengrocer to compete with Tesco.

It may be that little will change, and when it comes time to rewrite the rules FIFA will almost certainly do everything within their power to minimise the changes within the rules they now have to follow - but it a new system does bring in wholesale changes, then it could end up being that the entirely fair and just case brought by Diarra ends up having knock-on effects which damage the competitive balance of the game even more.

Edited October 6, 2024 by Vesper

[mkh 601]

Real Madrid are considering three centre backs, Castello Lukeba, Jorrel Hato, and Vitor Reis.

[@jfelixdiaz]

[OneMoSalah 8,886]

22 hours ago, Vesper said:

Exclusive: Chelsea coaches ‘alarmed’ by Kendry Paez as new footage analysed

https://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-Chelsea-coaches-alarmed-by-kendry-paez-as-new-footage-analysed/

Chelsea are “very worried” about the development of wonderkid signing Kendry Paz, sources have told Football Insider.

The 17-year-old will sign for Chelsea in a £17.2million move once he turns 18 in May 2025, but he has been caught in some off-field skirmishes.

The Londoners are “alarmed” by Paez’s lack of development on the pitch since his signing last year.

Sources have told Football Insider that the attacking midfielder isn’t progressing as quickly as coaches hoped amid new concerns about whether he will be ready for the Premier League next year.

Chelsea have been scrutinising all of his footage, and he has not been as effective in recent months as the Premier League giants had hoped.

Paez made 32 appearances in all competitions last season, scoring seven goals and providing five assists.

Chelsea had been impressed by Kendry Paez’s performances

The Blues agreed to a deal to sign the teenager from Independiente del Valle in the summer of 2023 when he was just 16 years old.

Paez became the youngest-ever South American to score in a World Cup qualifier last October after being assisted by his future Chelsea teammate, Moises Caicedo.

However, off-the-field antics have led to him being warned by Ecuador manager Sebastian Beccacece about his behaviour.

 

Chelsea are currently thriving in all competitions after making an impressive start to life under Enzo Maresca.

The new Blues boss has proven he can be ruthless with players, cutting out the likes of Raheem Sterling and Ben Chilwell.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Standard…. Wonder kid not as effective as the previous season. The guys like 12, taking punts on these kind of players to be ready for the PL ever yet alone in 2 seasons is absolutely moronic.

[Vesper 30,224]

2 hours ago, mkh said:

Castello Lukeba, Jorrel Hato

both can play LB too and Carlo is very unhappy with Ferland Mendy atm

[mkh 601]

#Chelsea sent a scout to watch Hellas Verona midfielder Reda Belahyane this week.

● Belahyane is a deep-lying midfielder.

#Chelsea remain interested in Omorodion and Duran.✅️💪
 

 

Edited October 6, 2024 by mkh

[Vytis33 1,276]

And there’s the new deal

 

 

[Vesper 30,224]

16 hours ago, mkh said:

#Chelsea remain interested in Omorodion and Duran.✅️💪

roflmaooooooooooooooooooooooooo

wtf

little late lads

[Vesper 30,224]

1 hour ago, Vytis33 said:

And there’s the new deal

 

 

will be surprised if we do not try for Osimhen in January

we do not have a lot of options in then

maybe we just wait until summer

Edited October 7, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,224]

Why FIFA ruling may force Chelsea into £34m Raheem Sterling U-turn

https://www.thechelseachronicle.com/news/why-fifa-ruling-may-force-Chelsea-into-34m-raheem-sterling-u-turn/

Raheem Sterling’s move to Arsenal came after he and droves of other first-teamers were forced into the now-infamous ‘bomb squad’, but that option may not be available to Chelsea for much longer.

Sterling was the most high-profile Chelsea player to be ostracised in the hopes that it would force them to move on and bring in much needed revenue and wage savings.

But 13 players in total were made to train with the reserves by Enzo Maresca over a period in the summer, including Romelu Lukaku, Trevor Chalobah, Kepa Arrizabalaga and Armando Broja.

All of those players have now moved away on loan or, in Lukaku’s case, permanently.

And while it attracted huge scrutiny from the media and supporters alike, the bomb squad treatment did prove an effective way of giving Chelsea more PSR wriggle room – at least in the short term.

Deivid Washington, Harvey Vale, Alex Matos and – most notably – £200,000-a-week left-back Ben Chilwell are the only players from the 13-man blacklist to still be on the payroll for 2024-25.

The bombastic recruitment strategy under Todd Boehly and Eghbali, who are at loggerheads in the boardroom, means the club feel this kind of draconian treatment is a necessity to relieve financial strain.

Under the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules, Chelsea are allowed to lose no more than £105m over a rolling three-year period, excluding costs such as infrastructure and youth development.

The margins are very tight for Chelsea after spending more than £1.5bn on new signings under the Clearlake-led regime, so saving the bulk of Sterling’s £325,000-a-week salary for the season is significant.

But the method that the club used to persuade the 29-year-old attacker to accept a move to Arsenal has now been challenged at the very highest level.

• READ MORE: Investor who pumped £500m into Chelsea in talks over £6bn-valued takeover in the USA

Ex-Chelsea star successfully FIFA transfer system

Lassana Diarra played 31 times for Chelsea between 2005 and 2007, winning both the League Cup and FA Cup during his time at Stamford Bridge.

But his legacy in West London and beyond will now be defined by the European Court of Justice case against FIFA that has just won.

In a case which is being described as just as significant as the 1995 Bosman ruling, Diarra’s team have succeeded in the case relating to his exit under a cloud from Lokomotiv Moscow over a decade ago.

They argued FIFA’s rule, which holds the player and the club signing him jointly liable for compensation to his previous club when the player terminates his contract without ‘just cause’, is unlawful.

The ruling is expected to greatly increase ‘player power’ and some experts argue it could change football’s ecosystem forever.

Stefan Borson, a lawyer and former adviser to Man City, has claimed that the ruling may mean that ‘bomb squad’ treatment may be grounds for a player to terminate his deal, specifically namechecking Chelsea in the process.

‘In English law, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of the employment contract, such as violating the implied duty of trust and confidence.

‘Bomb squad treatment – where players are excluded from training without justification – could, in theory, meet this test.

‘However, FIFA’s Article 14(2) does not definitively address marginalisation as a form of abusive conduct, so players have still needed to navigate this grey area and have been hesitant to seek releases from contracts.

‘The Diarra case could trigger a shift in player transfers. Players in bomb squads, who previously feared retribution for claiming just cause, may now feel more empowered to terminate contracts.

‘The reduction in risks for new clubs could encourage more signings of players isolated by their current teams.

‘While Diarra doesn’t redefine abusive conduct, it opens the door for Bomb Squad players to challenge unfair treatment without a self imposed suspension.’

 

Sterling is under contract until 2027, meaning Chelsea will still owe him two years wages – approximately £34m – after this season is done.

If freezing him out is no longer an option, it would be a major blow to Chelsea and would force them to rethink their strategy in trying to get high-wage players off the books.

• READ MORE: Chelsea poised to make £158m transfer announcement with major PSR impact

The ruling and its impact on Sterling, Chilwell and more

In essence, the ruling may mean that the way Chelsea have treated Sterling in order to try and oust him may – in future – be grounds for the player to terminate his deal and another club to sign him for free.

This would give Chelsea far less leverage in their attempting to rid themselves of the likes of Sterling and Chelsea, damaging their chances of complying with PSR.

They are by no means the only club who might be impacted by the seismic ruling, but their financial situation does mean that they will likely have more anxiety about the Diarra ruling than most.

[Vesper 30,224]

EXPLAINED: How the Diarra case could end Chelsea's and other team's "Bomb Squads"

The Diarra v FIFA ruling could significantly impact clubs unilaterally sending players to "Bomb Squads" (isolating players from first-team training to force an exit). Whilst the case doesn't directly change the interpretation of constructive dismissal or abusive processes, it may remove key barriers that discouraged clubs from signing players in disputes, empowering more players to seek just cause departures.

FIFA’s Article 14(2) and Bomb Squads

While Article 14(2) of FIFA’s regulations prohibits abusive conduct, the rule is not specific enough to definitively address bomb squad situations where players are isolated from first-team training. It focuses more on clear harassment or bullying and has not yet been fully tested in marginalisation cases. This means the current interpretation of abusive conduct in such cases remains unclear but it is clear that preventing a player from training with the first team may constitute a abuse by the club. This was reiterated in the recent case of Football Club FCSB SA v. Lukasz Gikiewicz (https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/6950.pdf…).

Constructive dismissal, abusive conduct and just cause

In English law, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of the employment contract, such as violating the implied duty of trust and confidence. Bomb squad treatment - where players are excluded from training without justification - could, in theory, meet this test. However, FIFA’s Article 14(2) does not definitively address marginalisation as a form of abusive conduct, so players have still needed to navigate this grey area and have been hesitant to seek releases from contracts.

What Diarra changes

The Diarra ruling challenges FIFA’s solidarity liability and presumption of inducement, finding they were disproportionately restrictive. Removal of these rules would reduce the risk for new clubs signing players involved in disputes eliminating a significant disincentive that has previously kept clubs from taking on players claiming just cause termination. Post Diarra, new clubs may be more willing to gamble on signing players isolated by their current clubs comfortable that they aren't inviting big compensation claims from former clubs.

Buying clubs more willing to sign an ostracised player?

With the presumption of inducement removed, new clubs will likely feel more confident in signing players alleging just cause. In the past, clubs feared joint liability for signing such players. Under Diarra, this concern is lowered, making Bomb Squad players more attractive to new clubs, even if their case for just cause is uncertain.  

A new transfer world?

The Diarra case could trigger a shift in player transfers. Players in bomb squads, who previously feared retribution for claiming just cause, may now feel more empowered to terminate contracts. The reduction in risks for new clubs could encourage more signings of players isolated by their current teams. While Diarra doesn’t redefine abusive conduct, it opens the door for Bomb Squad players to challenge unfair treatment without a self imposed suspension.

[Vesper 30,224]

Thomas Tuchel given £84m Chelsea transfer shortlist as Man United find Erik ten Hag replacement

Chelsea could help Thomas Tuchel jumpstart his tenure at Manchester United by selling the German a few players

https://www.football.london/Chelsea-fc/transfer-news/thomas-tuchel-given-84m-Chelsea-30085239

Thomas Tuchel could jumpstart his tenure at Manchester United by signing a few familiar faces. The former Chelsea boss has remerged as a potential replacement for Erik ten Hag at Old Trafford, with the Dutchman under incredible pressure.

According to the Manchester Evening News, the Red Devils have identified Tuchel as a candidate for the head coach position. The report states Manchester United were interested in the German, who parted ways with Bayern Munich at the end of last season, when they contemplated sacking Ten Hag in the summer.

Instead, the club activated the option to extend the 54-year-old's contract by a year after winning the FA Cup final. Nevertheless, it's said the United hierarchy will hold a meeting in London on Tuesday, with the Ten Hag's position to be discussed in the coming days.

As it stands, the former Ajax boss has a contract that keeps him at Old Trafford until June 2026. So, with that being said, football.london has looked at what players Tuchel could sign from Chelsea if he were to replace Ten Hag at Manchester United.

Ben Chilwell – £18.5m

Chilwell has struggled to force himself into Enzo Maresca's side, having failed to impress in recent outings. The 27-year-old left-back, who's valued at £18.5m (€22m) by Transfermarkt, has featured just once for Chelsea this season, appearing off the bench in the Blues' 5-0 win over Barrow in the Carabao Cup third round.

Despite questions marks over his ability to play in a back-four and a heavily possession-based side, Chilwell could be just what Tuchel is looking for if the German operates a back-five with flying wing-backs at Manchester United. While he's previously impressed in that role, he has nursed a couple of hamstring injuries since.

Benoit Badiashile – £25.1m

Badiashile enjoyed an excellent vein of form when he first joined Chelsea from Monaco in January 2023, helping the Blues keep three clean sheets in his first three Premier League games. Then, at the end of the season, he suffered a hamstring injury before picking up a couple of groin issues the following campaign.

The 23-year-old centre-half, who's valued at £25.1m (€30m) by Transfermarkt, ended last term as a key player in Mauricio Pochettino's lineup. But, since Maresca took over, Levi Colwill has been preferred alongside Wesley Fofana and the Cobham graduate hasn't put a foot wrong.

Raheem Sterling – £29.3m

Sterling joined Arsenal on a season-long loan on deadline day in the summer. Despite arriving as a 'marquee signing' and topping the club's wage bill, the 29-year-old winger failed to live up to expectations at Stamford Bridge, scoring just 14 goals in 59 appearances in the Premier League.

It's said that the Gunners don't have an option to buy Sterling at the end of the season, leaving the door wide open for Manchester United to take him off Chelsea's hands. Tuchel could use the England international, who's valued at £29.3m (€35m) by Transfermarkt, in the same way he used Timo Werner.

Trevoh Chalobah – £10.9m

Chalobah also left Chelsea on a season-long loan in the summer, without including an option to buy in his contract. The 25-year-old defender, who's valued at £10.9m (€13m) by Transfermarkt, was controversially omitted from the Blues squad before finally joining Crystal Palace.

While Chalobah wasn't necessarily a regular in Tuchel's side at Stamford Bridge, he was called upon in some big games. So, if the German wants somebody who's ready to slot straight into a back-five at Old Trafford, then the Cobham graduate would be a good option in the summer.

Edited October 7, 2024 by Vesper

[Mhsc 1,098]

34 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Why FIFA ruling may force Chelsea into £34m Raheem Sterling U-turn

https://www.thechelseachronicle.com/news/why-fifa-ruling-may-force-Chelsea-into-34m-raheem-sterling-u-turn/

Raheem Sterling’s move to Arsenal came after he and droves of other first-teamers were forced into the now-infamous ‘bomb squad’, but that option may not be available to Chelsea for much longer.

Sterling was the most high-profile Chelsea player to be ostracised in the hopes that it would force them to move on and bring in much needed revenue and wage savings.

But 13 players in total were made to train with the reserves by Enzo Maresca over a period in the summer, including Romelu Lukaku, Trevor Chalobah, Kepa Arrizabalaga and Armando Broja.

All of those players have now moved away on loan or, in Lukaku’s case, permanently.

And while it attracted huge scrutiny from the media and supporters alike, the bomb squad treatment did prove an effective way of giving Chelsea more PSR wriggle room – at least in the short term.

Deivid Washington, Harvey Vale, Alex Matos and – most notably – £200,000-a-week left-back Ben Chilwell are the only players from the 13-man blacklist to still be on the payroll for 2024-25.

The bombastic recruitment strategy under Todd Boehly and Eghbali, who are at loggerheads in the boardroom, means the club feel this kind of draconian treatment is a necessity to relieve financial strain.

Under the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules, Chelsea are allowed to lose no more than £105m over a rolling three-year period, excluding costs such as infrastructure and youth development.

The margins are very tight for Chelsea after spending more than £1.5bn on new signings under the Clearlake-led regime, so saving the bulk of Sterling’s £325,000-a-week salary for the season is significant.

But the method that the club used to persuade the 29-year-old attacker to accept a move to Arsenal has now been challenged at the very highest level.

• READ MORE: Investor who pumped £500m into Chelsea in talks over £6bn-valued takeover in the USA

Ex-Chelsea star successfully FIFA transfer system

Lassana Diarra played 31 times for Chelsea between 2005 and 2007, winning both the League Cup and FA Cup during his time at Stamford Bridge.

But his legacy in West London and beyond will now be defined by the European Court of Justice case against FIFA that has just won.

In a case which is being described as just as significant as the 1995 Bosman ruling, Diarra’s team have succeeded in the case relating to his exit under a cloud from Lokomotiv Moscow over a decade ago.

They argued FIFA’s rule, which holds the player and the club signing him jointly liable for compensation to his previous club when the player terminates his contract without ‘just cause’, is unlawful.

The ruling is expected to greatly increase ‘player power’ and some experts argue it could change football’s ecosystem forever.

Stefan Borson, a lawyer and former adviser to Man City, has claimed that the ruling may mean that ‘bomb squad’ treatment may be grounds for a player to terminate his deal, specifically namechecking Chelsea in the process.

‘In English law, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of the employment contract, such as violating the implied duty of trust and confidence.

‘Bomb squad treatment – where players are excluded from training without justification – could, in theory, meet this test.

‘However, FIFA’s Article 14(2) does not definitively address marginalisation as a form of abusive conduct, so players have still needed to navigate this grey area and have been hesitant to seek releases from contracts.

‘The Diarra case could trigger a shift in player transfers. Players in bomb squads, who previously feared retribution for claiming just cause, may now feel more empowered to terminate contracts.

‘The reduction in risks for new clubs could encourage more signings of players isolated by their current teams.

‘While Diarra doesn’t redefine abusive conduct, it opens the door for Bomb Squad players to challenge unfair treatment without a self imposed suspension.’

 

Sterling is under contract until 2027, meaning Chelsea will still owe him two years wages – approximately £34m – after this season is done.

If freezing him out is no longer an option, it would be a major blow to Chelsea and would force them to rethink their strategy in trying to get high-wage players off the books.

• READ MORE: Chelsea poised to make £158m transfer announcement with major PSR impact

The ruling and its impact on Sterling, Chilwell and more

In essence, the ruling may mean that the way Chelsea have treated Sterling in order to try and oust him may – in future – be grounds for the player to terminate his deal and another club to sign him for free.

This would give Chelsea far less leverage in their attempting to rid themselves of the likes of Sterling and Chelsea, damaging their chances of complying with PSR.

They are by no means the only club who might be impacted by the seismic ruling, but their financial situation does mean that they will likely have more anxiety about the Diarra ruling than most.

Unsurprisingly, known Chelsea hater slbsn interprets everything that happens as proof that Chelsea is doomed, after successfully predicting 25 of our last 1 transfer bans.

Guy is obsessed and no matter that he humiliates himself time after time, he just keeps going.

[DH1988 1,348]

Borson is literally obsessed with Chelsea and to date he's been largely wrong everytime he's been on TalkSport about our club, attention seeker.

[Vesper 30,224]

27 minutes ago, Mhsc said:

Unsurprisingly, known Chelsea hater slbsn interprets everything that happens as proof that Chelsea is doomed, after successfully predicting 25 of our last 1 transfer bans.

Guy is obsessed and no matter that he humiliates himself time after time, he just keeps going.

[Vesper 30,224]

Is this the end for football’s entire transfer system or not? (Or something else entirely?)

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5817939/2024/10/05/transfers-football-lassana-diarra/

Something happened in Luxembourg on Friday that will either bring an end to football’s transfer system as we know it, make the stars even richer, jeopardise player development and ruin hundreds of clubs across Europe, or it will make FIFA rewrite a couple of sentences in its rulebook.

As Sliding Doors moments go, that’s a stark choice: jump on board and take a trip to oblivion, or get the next train to where you went yesterday and every day for the last 20 years.

The agent of change in this analogy is the European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ) that some of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players — the set of rules that have defined the transfer system since 2001 — are against European Union (EU) law.

The EU’s highest court was asked to look at the regulations by an appeal court in Belgium that has been trying to settle a row between former player Lassana Diarra, in one corner, and FIFA and the Belgian football federation in the other.

That dispute has dragged on since 2015, but the Belgian court can now apply the ECJ’s guidance to the matter, which should result in some long-awaited compensation for Diarra and a redrafting of at least one article of FIFA’s rules.

But is that it? FIFA thinks so but The Athletic has heard from many others who say, no, that train has left the station and nobody knows where it is going.

So, let’s dive through the closing doors and see where we get to. But, before we do, let’s make sure everyone knows where we started.

---

What on earth are we talking about?

Good starting point.

After stints with Chelsea, Arsenal, Portsmouth and Real Madrid, Diarra moved to big-spending Anzhi Makhachkala in 2012. His time in Dagestan ended abruptly when the club ran out of money a year later but he had played well in the Russian league and Lokomotiv Moscow signed him to a four-year deal.

Sadly, after a bright start, the France midfielder fell out with his manager, who dropped him and demanded Diarra take a pay cut. The player declined and the situation deteriorated. By the summer of 2014, he had been sacked for breach of contract and Lokomotiv pursued him via FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber for damages.

Using a rule of thumb developed over the previous decade, FIFA decided Diarra owed his former employer €10.5million (£8.8m, $11.5m) and banned him for 15 months for breaking his contract “without just cause”, its catch-all phrase for messy divorces. Diarra appealed against the verdict but it was confirmed in 2016 by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), albeit with a slightly reduced financial hit.

 

Diarra (left) playing for Lokomotiv in 2013 (Sergey Rasulov Jr/Epsilon/Getty Images)

In the meantime, Diarra was offered a job by Belgian side Charleroi in 2015. They got cold feet when they realised that article 17 of FIFA’s transfer regulations — “the consequence of terminating a contract without just cause” — made them “jointly and severally liable” for any compensation owed to Lokomotiv and at risk of sporting sanctions, namely a transfer embargo.

Stuck on the sidelines, Diarra decided to sue FIFA and its local representative, the Belgian FA, for €6million in lost earnings.

Once his ban had expired in 2016, his football career resumed with a move to Marseille, and he would eventually retire in 2019 after stints with Al Jazira in Abu Dhabi and Paris Saint-Germain. His row with the football authorities continued, though, and, with the support of the French players’ union and FIFPRO, the global players’ union, he took it all the way to Luxembourg City, where he won, on Friday morning.

All caught up?

---

Erm… no — what has he won?

Ah, well, it depends on who you believe.

According to his lawyers, Jean-Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, Diarra has won “a total victory”, but not just for him.

“All professional players have been affected by these illegal rules (in force since 2001!) and can therefore now seek compensation for their losses,” they said.

“We are convinced that this ‘price to pay’ for violating EU law will — at last — force FIFA to submit to the EU rule of law and speed up the modernisation of governance.”

As a heads-up, Dupont has considerable experience in this area — and we will return to him shortly.

FIFPRO, unsurprisingly, agrees. In a statement issued immediately after the decision was published, the union described it as a “major ruling on the regulation of the labour market in football (and, more generally, in sport) which will change the landscape of professional football”.

Later on Friday, it published a longer statement that expanded on its belief that this was both a big W for Diarra personally but also a class action victory for all players.

“It is clear the ECJ has ruled unequivocally that central parts of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players are incompatible with European Union law,” it said.

“In particular, the ECJ has stated that the calculation of compensation to be paid by a player who terminates a contract ‘without just cause’ — and the liability for the player’s new club to be jointly liable for such compensation — cannot be justified.”

 

Diarra at PSG in 2018 (Thananuwat Srirasant/Getty Images for ICC)

It continued by saying these clauses of article 17 of the regulations “are the foundation of the current transfer system and have discouraged numerous players from terminating their contract unilaterally and pursuing new employment”. Furthermore, it said, the ECJ agreed with the union that players’ careers can be short and “this abusive system” can make them shorter.

It leapt on the more memorable sections of what is a bone-dry, 43-page judgment (currently only available in French and Polish), by pointing out that the court’s judges think the criteria FIFA used for calculating Diarra’s fine, and other sanctions in cases like his, are “sometimes imprecise or discretionary, sometimes lacking any objective link with the employment relationship in question and sometimes disproportionate”.

It then suggested that the only way to remedy this, and the other problems the court highlighted, is for FIFA to talk it through properly with the unions and their members.

“We commend Lassana Diarra for pursuing this challenge which has been so demanding,” it continues.

“FIFPRO is proud to have been able to support him. Lassana Diarra — like Jean-Marc Bosman before him — has ensured that thousands of players worldwide will profit from a new system…”

---

Hold on… Bosman? 

Yes, Bosman, another midfielder who did not quite live up to his early promise as a player but confounded all expectations as a labour-rights revolutionary and begetter of new worlds.

In case you are hazy on the details, Bosman found himself in a similar spot to Diarra in 1990 when he was out of favour at RFC Liege. The difference, however, is that he was out of contract and simply wanted to take up a new one just over the French border in Dunkerque. Liege said words to the effect of “OK, but only if they pay us half a million”, as was the custom back then.

Five years later, Bosman was finished as a player but not before he had claimed football’s most famous ECJ ruling — one that meant players were free agents once their contracts had expired, massively increasing their attractiveness to new employers, and bringing down European football’s long-standing restrictions on the number of foreign players clubs could field.

Dupont was his lawyer and that is partly why agents, union officials and some legal experts have been previewing Diarra as “the next Bosman” ever since one of the ECJ’s advocate generals — senior lawyers who help the judges make their decisions — published his non-binding opinion on the case earlier this year. The judges do not have to follow that guidance, but this time they did, almost verbatim.

So, that is why my phone started buzzing with contrasting predictions of what Diarra’s win would mean for the game long before anyone had got past the preamble of the ruling.

---

OK, what might happen next, then?

To answer this, it is perhaps useful to go back to Bosman. When that bombshell ruling was delivered, clubs said the world would end, as the players now had all the power, which meant there was no point having academies, as the brightest talents would leave for nothing, and fans could forget getting attached to anyone, as the best players would swap teams every year.

The verdict came too late to help Bosman. But when the likes of Sol Campbell and Steve McManaman ran down their contracts at Tottenham and Liverpool respectively, in order to secure moves to new clubs, on much higher wages, it looked like the doom-mongers were onto something.

But six years after Bosman, the clubs, aided by FIFA and European football’s governing body UEFA, managed to persuade the European Commission that too much freedom of movement was bad for football and what that industry really needed was contractual “stability”.

The result was the first iteration of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The authorities called it a compromise between the clubs’ need to retain some control of their most valuable assets and every other EU citizen’s right to quit one job and take another, anywhere in the single market. The unions called it “an ambush”.

 

The case of Bosman (centre) changed the transfer system (STF/AFP via Getty Images)

In 2006, however, the pendulum swung towards the players again when a Scottish defender called Andy Webster decided to use a provision in the rules — the right for a player to buy out their contract after a prescribed protected period — to force a move from Hearts to Wigan.

As he was over 28, his protected period was three years and he was in the final year of a five-year deal, so he was OK to move. Unfortunately, nobody had settled on a formula for deciding how much he should pay his old club.

Hearts reckoned Webster, an international, was worth £5million but his lawyers offered them £250,000, a sum equal to what he was owed in wages for the last year of his deal.

Like Diarra, they took it to FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which decided Hearts were owed £625,000, a sum based on his future earnings and the club’s legal costs. He appealed against that verdict at CAS and it reduced the compensation by £150,000 but backed the gist of the ruling.

For a year, it looked like Webster had become “the new Bosman” but, in 2007, the pendulum swung back towards “stability” when Brazilian midfielder Matuzalem tried to engineer “a Webster” out of Shakhtar Donetsk to Real Zaragoza.

After the usual visits to the DRC and CAS, football had a new, more club-friendly precedent for deciding the compensation jilted parties were owed by these unilateral contract-breakers, a sum based on the player’s remaining wages and his unamortised transfer fee.

Confused? Don’t worry, it was a bigger number and therefore a larger deterrent.

---

So, the pendulum is about to swing again?

Again, it depends on who you ask.

For FIFA, this is a great big nothingburger.

Its immediate response to the news from the ECJ was to jump on the sentences in the ruling that supported its right to have rules that breach EU rules on freedom of movement and competition because professional sport is not like journalism, law and other humdrum jobs. It has “specificity” and should therefore be exempted from certain principles, providing they are for a “legitimate objective”, such as “ensuring the regularity of interclub football competitions”.

Therefore, FIFA noted, the court still agrees football can justify rules aimed “at maintaining a certain degree of stability in the player rosters of professional football clubs”.

Phew, that should save most of the rulebook, then, right?

“The ruling only puts in question two paragraphs of two articles of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which the national court is now invited to consider,” a FIFA spokesperson said, referring specifically to two of Diarra’s main objections: the joint liability of the new club in a dispute like his, and the withholding of the International Transfer Certificate, which players need for a cross-border deal, until compensation has been paid.

FIFA’s chief legal and compliance officer Emilio Garcia Silvero doubled down on this “Am I bothered?” take with a later statement that said: “Today’s decision does not change the core principles of the transfer system at all.”

And he might be right. After all, it is now up to the Belgian court to apply the ECJ ruling to the Diarra case, which could clarify things slightly and certainly provide some time for the dust to settle.

 

(Kirill Kudryavstev/AFP via Getty Images)

It is also possible to read the ECJ ruling and imagine a scenario in which FIFA places all liability for breaching contracts “without just cause” on the player but puts in place a less onerous and more transparent formula for working out how much compensation should be paid.

And if FIFA wanted to increase its chances of gaining union support, it could also broaden the list of reasons why a player might have cause to break a contract. At present, it thinks the only justifications for a player to breach are not getting paid for months on end or the outbreak of war.

But there are plenty of people who have now read the ruling and do not believe FIFA is going to get away with a few tweaks.

As mentioned, FIFPRO and its member players’ associations are convinced the entire transfer regime is up for grabs and FIFA will now have to enter into the types of collective bargaining agreements that are central to professional sport in North America.

As David Terrier, the president of FIFPRO Europe, puts it: “The regulation of a labour market is either through national laws or collective agreements between social partners.”

Ian Giles, head of antitrust and competition for Europe, Middle East and Africa at global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, is on the same page as the unions when it comes to the potential ramifications of the ruling.

“The decision essentially says the current system is too restrictive and so will have to change,” he explained.

“In terms of free movement, the ECJ recognises there may be a justification on public interest grounds to maintain the stability of playing squads, but considers the current rules go beyond what is necessary.

“It’s a similar story regarding the competition law rules. The ECJ has deemed the relevant transfer rules to amount to a ‘by object’ restriction — a serious restriction similar to a ‘no-poach’ agreement. Concerns about labour market restrictions, including ‘no-poach’ agreements, are a particular area of focus for competition authorities globally.

“Under competition law, it’s possible for otherwise restrictive agreements to be exempt — and therefore not problematic — if they lead to certain overriding benefits, but it’s generally difficult for ‘by object’ restrictions to meet the specific requirements for exemption.”

Giles’ point about the ECJ saying article 17 of the regulations is a “by object” restriction has been noted by other experts, as it means the court is effectively saying it is a restriction, end of story, and there can be no justification for it, no matter how noble the objective.

In terms of what this might mean for the industry, Giles can only speculate like the rest of us.

“It’s entirely possible this means players will feel they can now break contracts and sign on with new clubs, without the selling club being able to hold them or demand significant transfer fees,” he said.

“This will likely result in reduced transfer fees and more economic power for players, but over time things will have to stabilise to allow clubs to remain economically viable. Smaller clubs who rely on transfer fees for talent they have developed may well be the losers in this context.

“The key question now for FIFA will be how they how can adapt its transfer rules so that they are less restrictive and therefore compatible with EU law, while seeking to maintain the stability of playing squads. It will also be interesting to see whether more players start to breach their contracts in the meantime, emboldened by the ECJ’s judgment.

“Something else to keep an eye on is whether we could see other players bring damages claims, alleging they’ve suffered harm as a result of FIFA’s transfer rules, with damages claims for breaches of competition law generally on the rise in the UK and Europe.”

---

Right, has anyone else chipped in?

Yes! Not that they have shed much light on where we are heading, although they have confirmed where loyalties lie.

European Leagues, the organisation that represents the interests of domestic leagues across the continent, took a player-friendly stance by saying the decision confirmed that “FIFA must comply with national laws, European Union laws or national collective bargaining”.

It added that it stood for contractual stability but only when it is “safeguarded by national laws and collective bargaining agreements negotiated and agreed by professional leagues and players’ unions at domestic level”.

The European Club Association (ECA), however, adopted an “if ain’t broke (for us), why fix it” approach.

“Whilst the judgement raises certain concerns, the ECA observes that the provisions analysed by (the court) relate to specific aspects of the FIFA RSTP, with the football player transfer system being built on the back of the entire regulatory framework set out in the (regulations) which, by and large, remains valid,” it said.

“More importantly, the ECJ did recognise the legitimacy of rules aiming at protecting the integrity and stability of competitions and the stability of squads, and rules which aim to support such legitimate objectives, including among others, the existence of registration windows, the principle that compensation is payable by anyone who breaches an employment contract and the imposition of sporting sanctions on parties that breach those contracts.”

As a champion of clubs large and small, the ECA noted that the transfer system “affords medium and smaller-sized clubs the means to continue to compete at high levels of football, especially those who are able to develop and train players successfully”.

Whether that is actually true or not is the subject of a much bigger and long-running debate. But it is certainly an attractive idea and sometimes that can be enough.

---

What do football’s transfer movers think?

My colleague Dan Sheldon spoke to Rafaela Pimenta, a football agent who represents Erling Haaland, Matthijs de Ligt, Noussair Mazraoui and other top stars. She told The Athletic: “If you talk to agents, they are over-excited because, finally, the players are going to get heard. How many times are we still going to see them crying after having their careers destroyed because they are being denied a transfer?”

She made it clear, though, that the focus now should be on conversations between football’s various stakeholders to define what the new rules should be.

 

Pimenta is a significant figure in the game (Andrea Staccioli/Insidefoto/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“For players, this can be a landmark and I hope players will use it wisely,” she said. “This is not an excuse for them to do whatever they want; it is a reason to stand up for their rights.

“I think what the challenge here is to make sure their voices are used responsibly. And by that I mean let’s talk and have this discussion, let’s lead the process and understand what clubs need, what players need and what is the compromise.

GO DEEPER

Moving Haaland, Raiola's faux pas and taking on FIFA: An interview with Rafaela Pimenta

“If there is no balance and one side, either the players or the clubs have all the power, then it will go wrong again.

“I understand clubs need to have assets, but they need to understand that players are human beings and sometimes things don’t go according to plan and they cannot become the asset that stays there parked on a corner.”

---

That is probably enough excitement for one day. We shall be back with more analysis when the pendulum swings again.

[Vesper 30,224]

Aston Villa’s Jhon Duran signs new contract until 2030

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5824791/2024/10/07/jhon-duran-aston-villa-contract/

---

Aston Villa striker Jhon Duran has signed a new contract with the club until 2030.

The 20-year-old has been in strong form in the opening stages of the 2024-25 season, scoring six goals across all competitions, despite just one of his 10 appearances for Unai Emery’s side coming as a starter.

Duran has primarily been deployed as a second-half substitute for regular lone starting striker Ollie Watkins. Duran has frequently replaced Watkins, although the two played together in the closing stages of Sunday’s 0-0 home draw with Manchester United.

The Colombia international has scored Premier League goals against West Ham United, Leicester City, Everton and Wolverhampton Wanderers, while he also netted from long range in Villa’s 1-0 win at home to Bayern Munich in the Champions League.

Duran attracted interest from Chelsea and West Ham United during the summer and was investigated by Villa after appearing the cross his arms to make the ‘irons’ gesture relating to the latter club.

Duran joined Villa from Major League Soccer side Chicago Fire in January 2023 and played 37 times in the 2023-24 season, scoring eight goals. His previous deal was due to expire in 2028.

He made one appearance for Colombia at this summer’s Copa America as his side reached the final, in which they were defeated by Argentina. Duran’s only time on the pitch was a 13-minute cameo against Costa Rica in a group-stage victory.

GO DEEPER

Understanding Aston Villa's Jhon Duran - 'Nothing he was given was free'

Duran’s contract reward for remarkable turnaround

Analysis from Villa correspondent Jacob Tanswell

Duran’s new extension reflects a remarkable turnaround in feeling and relationship between the player, his representatives and Villa.

Team-mates and Duran himself were of the impression he would leave in the summer, with the Colombia striker wanting to push through a move, wanting to be a regular starter.

However, after resolution talks towards the end of the window — where Villa outlined his importance and Emery planned to increase his minutes, it marked the turning of the page. His importance and ability has been demonstrated this season but comes as little surprise to Villa, who believe he can become one of the world’s best forwards.

“If there is a club that really thinks Jhon Duran can become one of the top strikers in the world, then that one club is Aston Villa and that one manager is Unai Emery,” said Monchi, president of football operations in a wide-ranging interview. “There are no fewer than 40 clubs who want Duran — everyone wants him.”

GO DEEPER

Duran can be one of the best strikers in the world - Martinez

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]