Enzo Fernández | signs for Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chelsea actually being quite smart here.

So in the summer the new FFP rules come in.

We can't spend without selling regardless of new owners supposedly. And we have no one worth any money to fund the Striker and Midfielder we need. So we are in trouble unless we get creative and make money somehow.

Meanwhile when the new rules come in Chelsea will have already bought a feck ton of players. Even if those players don't work out they have a shit ton of players they can sell to fund more. Thereby getting around the new rules.

It's awful but smart all the same.

We need to find a creative way around these rules too considering ETH needs backed.
Yeah I just said the same thing
 
That’s assuming they’ll end up hits though, if a lot of them end up flopping then they’re stuck with a load of players on big wages and 8 year contracts.

Not really even if they sell for a loss it'll help them have money to spend. It quite smart really.
 
That’s assuming they’ll end up hits though, if a lot of them end up flopping then they’re stuck with a load of players on big wages and 8 year contracts.

From what has been reported the signings this window are on low base salaries with loads of performance bonus.
 
You are not triggering his release clause according to the report. And I think Castles is still quite well informed on Mendes' clients.
You aren't paying that amount up front, hence negotiations are required.

I understand that but he’s the only one reporting the higher fee. Everyone else is reporting the the amount being the release clause but not actually triggering the release clause itself.
 
That’s assuming they’ll end up hits though, if a lot of them end up flopping then they’re stuck with a load of players on big wages and 8 year contracts.
Everyone’s so focused on the “they might flop” scenario. The same can be applied to a player on a 5 year contract. The same could be applied to a World Class player on a 3 year contract. It’s so simplistic to look at that 1 aspect and say it’s bad.

A 300,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £46,800,000

A £200,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £31,200,000.

A £80,000 p/w contract over 8 years is £33,280,000.

No bonuses included (providing they’re flops). Base contract for a World Class player is more lucrative than a young player on a 8 year contract.
 
Last edited:
I understand that but he’s the only one reporting the higher fee. Everyone else is reporting the the amount being the release clause but not actually triggering the release clause itself.
The skeptic in me thinks he’s doing this so people take more notice of his report as it’s a figure that contradicts everyone else’s. I don’t trust the Pep Guardiola is my idol but he does have a good relationship with Mendes, either way, we’ll know soon if Benfica accept, as they have to report the fee to the stock exchange.
 
Chelsea actually being quite smart here.

So in the summer the new FFP rules come in.

We can't spend without selling regardless of new owners supposedly. And we have no one worth any money to fund the Striker and Midfielder we need. So we are in trouble unless we get creative and make money somehow.

Meanwhile when the new rules come in Chelsea will have already bought a feck ton of players. Even if those players don't work out they have a shit ton of players they can sell to fund more. Thereby getting around the new rules.

It's awful but smart all the same.

We need to find a creative way around these rules too considering ETH needs backed.
They always manage to get their business done before any law changes happen - they have been lucky with their timings.

Roman before FFP
Their transfer activity before their transfer ban
And now this amortisation bullshit.
 
People had pointed him out prior to coming to Europe. Not regular fans like you and me but people who watch more soccer.

Also a few differences between him and Gakpo:
1. He was key part of winning the WC
2. He has shown same stuff in the CL
3. There's a reason Gakpo went for what he did, and why Enzo is in bigger demand, different level of abilities.


And that’s why the fee is inflated the World Cup tax is a joke, that’s my point.

Apparently he ended up at Benfica for around 10m Euro 6 months ago, there’s no form on this planet that can see a rise of 130m fee in 6 months.

Is he a good player? probably but again the Chelsea scouts need sacking they should have signed him in the summer and he’s got a lot to prove.
 
Everyone’s so focused on the “they might flop” scenario. The same can be applied to a player on a 5 year contract. The same could be applied to a World Class player on a 3 year contract. It’s so simplistic to look at that 1 aspect and say it’s bad.

A 300,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £46,800,000

A £200,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £31,200,000.

A £80,000 p/w contract over 8 years is £33,280,000.

No bonuses included (providing they’re flops). Base contract for a World Class player is more lucrative than a young player on a 8 year contract.

Enzo surely won't be on only £80k p/w though?!?!

The likes of Camavinga and Tchouameni are on at least double that.
 
Everyone’s so focused on the “they might flop” scenario. The same can be applied to a player on a 5 year contract. The same could be applied to a World Class player on a 3 year contract. It’s so simplistic to look at that 1 aspect and say it’s bad.

A 300,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £46,800,000

A £200,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £31,200,000.

A £80,000 p/w contract over 8 years is £33,280,000.

No bonuses included (providing they’re flops). Base contract for a World Class player is more lucrative than a young player on a 8 year contract.
80k?
Which player for big money is getting 80k a week in this day and age?
 
Enzo surely won't be on only £80k p/w though?!?!

The likes of Camavinga and Tchouameni are on at least double that.

This is the only mention of possible salary I have seen.

The lucrative contract will see the Argentine midfielder earn a hefty €10 million per season, according to transfer expert Nicolo Schira.
 
unreal how they can spend like this without having questions brought up about how they have such a huge squad and turnover of players
 
To put it into context, 105m is the entirety of all the money we made from home games last season.

Kovacic, anyone?
 
I will take great joy in Chelsea’s failures.

Well, they have lost 7 of their last 12 games (scored 8 goals and conceded 17 in the same period).

They are 10th in the league, 10 points behind 4th place and still have to go away to Spurs, City, United and Arsenal.
 
Chelsea are just rushing the process. The mass inclusion of a squad worth of players to not allow the transition to take time. The only risk I can associate is if some of the signings fail and with the new rules it will perhaps take them longer to get suitable replacements.

I don't think they are as bad for instance as PSG who inflated the market with Mbappe / Neymar they are using a loophole to speed up a rebuild.
 
Everyone’s so focused on the “they might flop” scenario. The same can be applied to a player on a 5 year contract. The same could be applied to a World Class player on a 3 year contract. It’s so simplistic to look at that 1 aspect and say it’s bad.

A 300,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £46,800,000

A £200,000 p/w contract for 3 years is £31,200,000.

A £80,000 p/w contract over 8 years is £33,280,000.

No bonuses included (providing they’re flops). Base contract for a World Class player is more lucrative than a young player on a 8 year contract.

I think the issue with the 8 year contracts is the losses that will be incurred in 3 or 4 years time when you want to get rid of a flop.

An example would be Pulisic. Bought for £60m on a 5 year deal. After 4 years he’s not set the world alight and its time to let him move on and bring fresh blood in.

His amortised value on the books is £12m so. Selling him for £20m books an £8m profit for FFP.

On an 8 year deal, his amortised value is £30m so selling him for £20m is a £10m loss. Not a huge problem on one player, but soon adds up if done repeatedly.

The problem would then be compounded by the new FFP rules which puts a cap on transfers/wages/amortisation at 70% of revenues. You don’t want to sell players at a loss but keeping them on the books at a slower rate of amortisation limits spending on new signings.

So yeah you’ve halved your amortised payments but you’ve also slowed the speed at which it becomes profitable to sell anyone that doesnt work out. If chelsea had a better hit rate in terms of successful signings vs failures or if they just bought a few players then its not a huge concern. But doing this for this many signings in such a short space when you could argue the summer signings have already flopped rings some alarm bells.
 
Chelsea are just rushing the process. The mass inclusion of a squad worth of players to not allow the transition to take time. The only risk I can associate is if some of the signings fail and with the new rules it will perhaps take them longer to get suitable replacements.

I don't think they are as bad for instance as PSG who inflated the market with Mbappe / Neymar they are using a loophole to speed up a rebuild.
One might argue that it was Chelsea that kick-started the market inflation, prior to Roman teams might have bought 1 big price player a season or so and that changed and now every big club does it
 
Yeah forgot about him. Was he actually good for you though?
Yes. Unfortunately he never settled in England (in no small part thanks to losing his baby) but on the pitch he was very good.
 
Chelsea are just rushing the process. The mass inclusion of a squad worth of players to not allow the transition to take time. The only risk I can associate is if some of the signings fail and with the new rules it will perhaps take them longer to get suitable replacements.

I don't think they are as bad for instance as PSG who inflated the market with Mbappe / Neymar they are using a loophole to speed up a rebuild.

I suppose there are two ways you can look at it from Boehly's perspective - yes, 'organic' growth of three new players per season is less disruptive and gives the manager more time to bed players in and cultivate a team ethos, but it also takes a really long time to refresh a squad that way. Alternatively, if you spend a billion pounds on transfers in a single year (it looks like this may well happen) and buy more-or-less an entire new squad in the process, then you can throw everyone in right away. Yes, Potter probably does not know who the hell half his players are or where they play, but if it works you have a new team for the next six/seven years, with little further spending required; if it doesn't work, you just sell the club up, probably get most of your money back, run for the hills and watch safely from the USA while the whole thing crashes and burns in an almighty financial implosion. It's kind of a win-win at this point.
 
Wow Chelsea are almost spending as stupidly as we did under Woodward. You can’t rush the process.
 
if it doesn't work, you just sell the club up, probably get most of your money back, run for the hills and watch safely from the USA while the whole thing crashes and burns in an almighty financial implosion. It's kind of a win-win at this point.

He cannot sell the club or take dividends or leverage the club for ten years as a part of the buying contract.
 
Wow Chelsea are almost spending as stupidly as we did under Woodward. You can’t rush the process.
I'd say they're getting a better bang for their buck than we did
 
Wow Chelsea are almost spending as stupidly as we did under Woodward. You can’t rush the process.

They are far surpassing it. Although this deal is excellent, he is worth overspending. Absolute boss in central midfield, that we could do with.
 
They're smoking crack if they don't take 105 mill pounds

Well, Chelsea are probably the best club now to show an interest in your player, similar to how Woodward was previously. It depends on when they actually get paid and they might be shrewd and get a player on two on loan for the rest of their CL campaign.
 
Looks like Arsenal might sign a dusted Jorginho to help give you some money towards FFP. :wenger:
 
Looks like Arsenal might sign a dusted Jorginho to help give you some money towards FFP. :wenger:

As long as you want to play slow and can cover his defensive liabilities like Kante did, he has some tread left on his tires. A move in London is probably the easiest for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.