Moises Caicedo - Chelsea Sign Midfielder

[Bluewolf]

11 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

This sounds a lot like Jerry Maguire for some reason. 

[Cicero]

14 hours ago, Redcanuck said:

I thought FIFA rules were only 5 year contract maximum?

 

Chelsea to pay £115 m for Caicedo now, do Liverpool come back with £118m?

For amortization yes, the max is now 5 years. 

[Stan]

Finally. 

 

 

[Stan]

I thought these long contracts weren't allowed any more? 

[Rick]

Adios, shitbag

[Cicero]

28 minutes ago, Stan said:

I thought these long contracts weren't allowed any more? 

They are with regards to the player’s book value. The Amortization when spreading the payment is only 5 years however. 
 

Glad this saga is finally over. A player we desperately need 

[Danny]

37 minutes ago, Rick said:

Adios, shitbag

All he’s done is flat out refuse to join you 

[Rick]

18 minutes ago, Danny said:

All he’s done is flat out refuse to join you 

Yeah but I’m salty over it haha

[Danny]

11 minutes ago, Rick said:

Yeah but I’m salty over it haha

Him and Enzo is a game changing midfield unfortunately, Chelsea could well be on for a top 4 finish now

[Redcanuck]

Chelsea still in for Lavia? Where are they going to play Caicedo, Fernandez and Lavia? And why would Lavia still go there,  can't see him getting much playing  time.

[Cicero]

Yeah not sure what the plan is here but I expect things will make sense after Sept 1st. From lacking quality CMs to having an influx. 

[6666]

What's the total now under Boehly?

[Dave]

Over a billion dollars.

Not sure what the point of FFP is.

[Rick]

Certain members giving it the big one a few days ago don’t half look like a couple of pillocks now. 

[Mel81x+]

11 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

Not sure what the point of FFP is.

There was never any point to it. FIFA needed to look like it was going to do something about the parity issue in Football but they learned very quickly that their coffers being fed was more important than the sport being fair. Accountants and Lawyers have made a killing here. 

[OrangeKhrush]

FFP up the arse is Chelseas motto

[Honey Honey]

You are allowed a £105m loss over a 3 year period. If they spread their purchases out over 5 years but sales revenue in less they probably can do this.

If the Saudi's bought their players with cash then even more so.

It's if they don't finish in the top 4 they will probably have to fire sale or could be in big trouble.

[RandoEFC+]

They should just get rid of the "Fair" part of FFP because the end result is that Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City can spend almost endless amounts of money. Liverpool and Arsenal spend big on transfers as well but at least seem to have to pick and choose between players instead of having seemingly unlimited resources. I don't really know where Spurs fall between those and the rest but everyone else basically gets one chance to do a big wave of spending and if that doesn't generate them their money back then they end up crippled for years.

People will point to Newcastle as an example of it being possible to break the glass ceiling but it took them becoming one of the richest clubs in world football overnight and make no mistake that if their first wave of proper spending had gone wrong they'd be another Everton within 3-4 years.

If you want to make football in any way fair then you have to introduce a budget cap. All of the big clubs would still have overwhelming advantages by starting with better players, bigger stadiums and other pull factors. Except then they'd have to earn the right to stay at the top by getting their recruitment right. Man Utd have got away with years of mismanagement spending as much as Man City and having barely anything to show for it, while Chelsea can get away with spending £40m-£80m each on Lukaku, Havertz, Werner, Pulisic, Koulibaly, Cucurella, Kepa, Ziyech over the past few years only for every single one of them to flop and they just get to do it again and again. I'm sure I'll get the usual twisted defences about sustainable income and money generated from the academy but these are advantages they put into place with their oil money before FFP that now nobody else has a realistic opportunity to replicate themselves.

This talk of Chelsea signing Lavia as well on top of Caicedo is completely insane. It's one thing getting their first choice and Liverpool having to settle for the inferior player of the two but Chelsea spending over £150m to take both of them and even Liverpool not being able to get either because Chelsea can blow them that far out of the water financially, is fucking mental if it happens.

[Bluebird Hewitt]

£115m and on a 7-8 year contract!!!!

I know everyone rips into the Saudis and others for good reason, but this just highlights how ridiculous it is in the prem really (money wise at least).

[Cicero]

5 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

They should just get rid of the "Fair" part of FFP because the end result is that Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City can spend almost endless amounts of money. Liverpool and Arsenal spend big on transfers as well but at least seem to have to pick and choose between players instead of having seemingly unlimited resources. I don't really know where Spurs fall between those and the rest but everyone else basically gets one chance to do a big wave of spending and if that doesn't generate them their money back then they end up crippled for years.

People will point to Newcastle as an example of it being possible to break the glass ceiling but it took them becoming one of the richest clubs in world football overnight and make no mistake that if their first wave of proper spending had gone wrong they'd be another Everton within 3-4 years.

If you want to make football in any way fair then you have to introduce a budget cap. All of the big clubs would still have overwhelming advantages by starting with better players, bigger stadiums and other pull factors. Except then they'd have to earn the right to stay at the top by getting their recruitment right. Man Utd have got away with years of mismanagement spending as much as Man City and having barely anything to show for it, while Chelsea can get away with spending £40m-£80m each on Lukaku, Havertz, Werner, Pulisic, Koulibaly, Cucurella, Kepa, Ziyech over the past few years only for every single one of them to flop and they just get to do it again and again. I'm sure I'll get the usual twisted defences about sustainable income and money generated from the academy but these are advantages they put into place with their oil money before FFP that now nobody else has a realistic opportunity to replicate themselves.

This talk of Chelsea signing Lavia as well on top of Caicedo is completely insane. It's one thing getting their first choice and Liverpool having to settle for the inferior player of the two but Chelsea spending over £150m to take both of them and even Liverpool not being able to get either because Chelsea can blow them that far out of the water financially, is fucking mental if it happens.

Transfer fees are relative.

Its the wages that would need to be imposed on the big clubs, and on a global scale. 

[Danny]

Just shy of £900m in about 12 months is outrageous.

I think if ever there was a club that were to go bust and deserve it without any sympathy for anyone it'd be Chelsea, their fans are not worried by this in the slightest, business as usual. Just happy clapping along as they spend the GDP of Samoa, it's gobsmacking really.

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

Transfer fees are relative.

Its the wages that would need to be imposed on the big clubs, and on a global scale. 

Yeah it's in no way realistic to implement. All I'm saying if you want "fair" then that's your best solution.

They need to stop calling it FFP and just start referring to it as financial regulation or sustainability rules or whatever.

[Cicero]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

Just shy of £900m in about 12 months is outrageous.

I think if ever there was a club that were to go bust and deserve it without any sympathy for anyone it'd be Chelsea, their fans are not worried by this in the slightest, business as usual. Just happy clapping along as they spend the GDP of Samoa, it's gobsmacking really.

Oh piss off Danny.

You don't half shy away from slandering Chelsea but the part in bold is simply bollocks. @Bluewolf and I have spent the past 12 months showing our concerns regarding our spending and scatter gun approach. 

[Bluewolf]

5 minutes ago, Danny said:

Just shy of £900m in about 12 months is outrageous.

I think if ever there was a club that were to go bust and deserve it without any sympathy for anyone it'd be Chelsea, their fans are not worried by this in the slightest, business as usual. Just happy clapping along as they spend the GDP of Samoa, it's gobsmacking really.

I have to agree with @Cicero here mate, bit naughty that thinking we don't give a shit about what and how money has been spent since he took over... Obviously you don't read many of our posts

[Stan]

Done.