Enzo had a few teams after him, no one would touch Rice at that price. Don't think Caicedo is better then either, but Chelsea have made up their mind so this will be fun to watch drag out until the end.
Moises Caicedo | Chelsea agree £115M fee | signed for Chelsea
- Thread starter davidmichael
- Start date
- Status
Still mental. They grossly overpaid for Enzo, and I already highlighted why Rice would cost more, even though that fee is still mental.
Let’s not bother continuing this merry go round of a conversation.
We already know you are
What I don't understand is why he signed a new contract with Brighton earlier this year without a release clause
That seems silly. In order to demand 100 million you have to essentially call Caicedo and everyone in his camp liars.
Enzo had to go for his release clause because 5 teams wanted him if he went unsold to Summer, including Real Madrid. And he was the best young player in the world at the World Cup … and CL proven.
No such market exists for Caicedo.
Declan Is English. Possibly a future captain of England, and that plays into his pricing. EVERYONE knows that adds a decent percentage to his price tag. So if they really believe they are equivalent, then we are at the true equivalent price already.
Lavia is closer to a direct comp and he’s at half
At this point I would tell Caicedo’s camp we did our best, we were willing to go above our best to bring you in, but your club didn’t honor their agreement with you, in fact they essentially said you lied, and it’s up to you now.
NOW: my alternative devils advocate….Maatsen. If you abandon Kudus and/or Olise and listen to your manager… who is telling you that he HAS the extra player he needs there in house… then that should change the budget for Caicedo, and getting him in with at least some time to gel with the team becomes important.
He was reportedly told that if he stayed until the summer he’d be allowed to leave if a good offer came in. Unbelievably stupid from his agent to allow your client to sign a new deal in that scenario with no release clause.
I don't know who is more stupid. Offering 90m for Caicedo or rejecting it.
Chelsea has no one else to blame. They set the tone with Enzo. Rice transfer also didn't help.
Chelsea has no one else to blame. They set the tone with Enzo. Rice transfer also didn't help.
Ridiculous from his agent. I get he wanted higher wages, but to get a supposedly modest pay rise and to extend his contract by an extra 3 years is daft.
At bare minimum sign a new contract on higher wages but don't extend the term, or extend the term but with a release clause for 2024
Release clauses don’t make sales easier. They are usually put it when you really DON’T want to sell a player, because as we saw with the Enzo situation the terms, structure, taxes etc become a hinderance, even if the amount isn’t. The fact that one wasn’t in place, even after Caicedo had shown interest in Brighton accepting bids for him, adds validity to Caicedo’s story about how that re-sign went down.
Of note, the moment they broached the deal depending on another player (Colwill), if they really did that, then they broke even the most Brighton friendly versions of that story that came out.
I’m fairly certain they didn’t tell him: “we promise to sell you if a reasonable bid comes in…unless Chelsea won’t give us Colwill.. then we dig our heels in”.
if you don't want to sell them, surely it's better to not have one?
Again though, this sort of “agreement” happens all the time. It generally makes things easier, and most teams honor them.
Signing that new deal for a wage bump knowing that you’re likely going to move to a big club in the summer and getting an even bigger wage bump is daft as well.
If the release clause is specific and ultra reasonable…like “15m if a particular team comes to buy me” or a buyback clause, then they are better for selling. Any release clause above 60m is a HUGE deterrent though.
So it may seem counterintuitive, but no, release clauses don’t make sales easier in general.
Yep. I feel like money chasing is a big factor in all this, if not by the player, but the people he's surrounded himself with.
It ensures a better bargaining position for your current club, makes the player happy even though he missed a Jan move, and can be good for both parties.
they are getting offered 80m… so it worked from that standpoint.
You can’t be mad at someone wanting a wage bump. They do this as a profession. He could have just as easily been badly injured and missed out on all moves … with no new contract in hand. Can’t fault him for that.
I don’t see any logic in that statement
Don’t blame the player, I blame his agent. Any agent worth their salt with a top class client doesn’t let him sign that contract and remove ALL leverage from your side. Now Brighton can do whatever they want with him since he’s got so many more years in his deal.
When I heard he’d signed a new contract I was sure there must have been a nod & wink with even a release clause inserted but seems not. Terrible from his reps.
Again, Enzo was CL proven, with SEVERAL top teams talking to Benfica about a Summer purchase, including the Real Madrids of the world … and coming off winning the World Cup as the best young player.
Rice has much more experience, is still young, and is English… and had .. a host of teams interested.
As Romano stated: Chelsea is the only team bidding. If every other team dropped out at valuations near 60 to 70m …then Chelsea comes in at 80… that doesn’t seem outside of “reasonable” at all.
All three are different situations.
The obvious route here is to jet off to the home town, hit up some parties, miss training and dye your hair blonde. This seems to have become the official “sell me” language of players.
Caicedo is not angling for a transfer, he is fending off journalists and keeping his head on. I reckon there will be an option to go in 3 years time at a mind boggling fee.
I don't follow. Clubs activate release clauses to buy players all the time. If Caicedo had a release clause of £80m, he'd be a Chelsea player right now. We bought Partey using a release clause. The only stipulation was that the £45m had to be paid upfront in full. That's what annoyed Atletico so much. We couldn't agree a fee over several weeks and then unilaterally activated the release clause and left them no time to sign a replacement.
Why would a release clause be a hindrance? The selling club can always accept less than the clause if they need money. And the buying club can offer more than the clause if the terms are more important than the price. At the very worst it would be neutral, surely?
Well, this is obviously not true. Aside from the stories coming from his camp regarding his expectations after signing his new deal..
you also have vetted journalists like Romano and Jacobs openly discussing how frustrated and upset Caicedo and his people are.
You have Caicedo agreeing to terms with Chelsea and speaking to them on a number of occasions
So the idea he doesn’t want the transfer seems a stretch.
Well, no, the way the new FFP works we absolutely could NOT trigger an 80 m release clause. That would mean the lump sum and associated fees and taxes all at once.
That’s why we paid ABOVE Enzo’s release clause… just to avoid triggering a release clause.
It is how much you cost against the FFP cap per year that is important.
Caicedo himself has publicly stated he’d like to go to Chelsea in a televised interview like a week or two ago. He clearly wants to leave but just isn’t making a public show of it with a poor attitude. Yet.
Hope he holds out one more season for us.
Yeah you took the words right out of my mouth
But Caicedo is not just on the ball player right. Defensively Enzo has big weaknesses to his game. Just having a very good on the ball game is not adequate these days especially for DLPs.
(FYI I really like him, has kind of a Pirlo like profile very rare these days)
Are we sure FFP works this way.
There were no such huge onetime costs in Arsenal finances after the Partey transfer. His fees is also amortized like other players. Taxation issues can be true but majorly it looks to be a cashflow problem and time-value-of-money. Buying a house upfront or on zero interest EMI. Players are considered as asset so that could be a good comparison.
Enzo not defensively great as caicedo but he is not bad either. If Enzo plays along side caicedo both enhance each other's quality into great effect.
I might tempt to play Reece along side Enzo if we failed to sign caicedo. Reece with recurring knee problem he will be better to play in midfield role than rb. Reece has passing range,pace, great in 1vs1, good tackler and played DM role when he was on loan and got motm multiple times as DM.
I might tempt to play Reece along side Enzo if we failed to sign caicedo. Reece with recurring knee problem he will be better to play in midfield role than rb. Reece has passing range,pace, great in 1vs1, good tackler and played DM role when he was on loan and got motm multiple times as DM.
Yeah, FFP doesn't work like that. Payment terms is different from FFP calculation.
Brighton have all the reasons to ask for higher fee, don't think they will sell him for less than Rice fee.
FFP doesn't work like that. Whether you trigger the clause or pay the fee in 10 installments spread over 10 years, FFP will consider cost/contract length. If the rumors are true then it's cost/contract length upto 5 years.
Of cause it would be easier for sales if release clause was set.
The cost is on the table, if you put that money on that table, then take it.
Now, the player transfer fee is up to the decision of the club and the transfer maket change of the world. (Bellingham, Tchouaméni, Rice and Enzo money is reflected the Top Tier Midfield price of the maket)
In hindsight probably shoukd have paid the wages ugerte was asking for.
Caceido is expensive at £100mil, but he is only 21. A midfield of enzo, caicedo and ndkuku could end up saving chelsea a fortune in the ling run. I think this transfer may go to deadlinenday and Chelsea will end up paying what brighton want.
Last edited:
There is this weird assumption that Brighton have to sell Caicedo and it’s just not true. He’s a 21-year-old player with a four year contract. They made over 70m net in the transfer market last year and will have a revenue boost from European football. It’s a totally rational approach too plan on keeping him unless a really huge bid comes in.
Would this break some kind of agreement that was struck with the player? Nobody knows what was really discussed or promised and in what terms.
I think Chelsea have been a bit naive here, assuming they could just bully Brighton into selling AND get a good price. Tony Bloom won’t go for that. The guy is one of the most successful professional gamblers in the world. He isn’t afraid to call Todd Boehly’s bluff.
Would this break some kind of agreement that was struck with the player? Nobody knows what was really discussed or promised and in what terms.
I think Chelsea have been a bit naive here, assuming they could just bully Brighton into selling AND get a good price. Tony Bloom won’t go for that. The guy is one of the most successful professional gamblers in the world. He isn’t afraid to call Todd Boehly’s bluff.
Last edited:
Ugarte if he get more than Reece then there will be a problem. We tried to reduce wage bill then suddenly you can't change that philosophy. We lost Mount exactly for that.
I like the look of santos as well. He played well against Newcastle and cope with physical demands. Has calm and composure in making passes and holding possession like seasonal pro. We have options within.
Like i said if Reece plays there he will be as good as anyone. He has no particular weakness in his game other than his injury issues. Pochettino have high demands for fullbacks so it's better to use reece in less demanding role than maintaining entire stretch of right wing on his own.
Also gusto oh man the way he handled mitoma and enciso I don't think we need Reece in rb role unless emergency cover. Gusto and Reece should play in same 11 as well.Both are too good to sit on the bench.
So the 50m for Mount don't look so bad right now. Caicedo has talent, but more than 100m is crazy money, but Chelsea like to spend big so it is their own fault
- Status