Moises Caicedo | Chelsea agree £115M fee | signed for Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caicedo doesnt hold his position but defensively provides support by puting pressure by chasing after a player or the ball.

It will be interesting to see if this allows Enzo to be up & down the pitch aswell which could be great in sync (mount pressing at the same time at Cam would have been hard to penetrate) or it might provide a potential imbalance holding him or some creativity back.
 
bond19821982 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody has offered £90m though.
 
roonster09 said:
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.
Click to expand...

FFP is just a buzz word these days that fans and actually many reporters just use for no reason.
Payment structure does not hamper FFP but does cause cashflow problems. 15years back this was the biggest advantage United had because of huge revenues. Now it the state run clubs. For other clubs if they have to pay money upfront they mostly have to use credit facility and then pay interest on that thus making the transfer costlier.
This is the issue of upfront payments.
 
bond19821982 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Brighton knows Chelsea want Caicedo as their top target. Chelsea's current midfield looks Enzo, Gallagher (who could be sold), Chuk, Hall & Santos. I feel Hall's ready for his breakout season but not sure about Chuk & Santos. They desperately need a couple of additions here irrespective, particularly in a deeper role. I'm not surprised they're being taken to the cleaners like with Cucurella last year.
 
roonster09 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are release clauses and there are buyout clauses. One just sets the price tag but despite having to pay it in one go the spending will be amortised over the length of contract, the other one must be paid by the player himself so comes with all kinds of income tax implications and also cannot be amortised.

See here for a detailed description:



So a release clause is fine for FFP and how the payments are actually spread is just a cashflow question but a buyout clause is bad. In Spain they have mandatory buyout clauses in the contracts.
 
Escobar said:
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
Click to expand...
Well we still need a defensive midfielder, and we haven't even got our striker yet. It's a 2 in 1 package with Caicedo positionally, which would've been great.
 
This thread seems very similar to the Kane thread with fans bending over backwards to make Brighton seem unreasonable. If Chelsea had slapped that bid down at the start of the window, they wouldn't be in this problem.
 
Rnd898 said:
There are release clauses and there are buyout clauses. One just sets the price tag but despite having to pay it in one go the spending will be amortised over the length of contract, the other one must be paid by the player himself so comes with all kinds of income tax implications and also cannot be amortised.

See here for a detailed description:



So a release clause is fine for FFP and how the payments are actually spread is just a cashflow question but a buyout clause is bad. In Spain they have mandatory buyout clauses in the contracts.
Click to expand...


Looks like this guy is making it complicated than it is.

When Barca announced Pedri deal, they mentioned release clause as 1 billion, when they announced Gavi, they mentioned buyout clause. It's interchangeable in the official announcement itself.

Also Atletico Madrid mentioned in their official twitter that Arsenal paid Partey's buyout clause in La Liga HQ, so player terminated the contract. Not that player paid it.


Arsenal representatives have paid Thomas Partey’s release clause on behalf of the player.


LaLiga informed Atlético de Madrid at 11.28pm on Monday that Arsenal representatives have paid Thomas Partey’s release clause at the sports association’s headquarters.

The player has therefore unilaterally terminated his contract with our club, which ran until June 30, 2023.
Click to expand...

Atletico used buyout in their twitter account and release clause in their official statement, they also said Arsenal paid Partey's release clause on player's behalf.
 
Powderfinger said:
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.
Click to expand...
This notion you can just strong arm clubs for their players is one of the biggest irritants of these threads.
 
Fortitude said:
This notion you can just strong arm clubs for their players is one of the biggest irritants of these threads.
Click to expand...

That and “he’s a United fan so he’d definitely choose us” in both the Ferguson and Caicedo threads. Whilst you’re a much bigger club, players are very savvy about who they join to have a first team progression pathway, looking at the bigger picture for their careers. Ferguson, for example, chose Brighton over Liverpool.
 
Powderfinger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it bullying to try and negotiate a price down?
 
CannonBalls said:
Honestly Caicedo would instantly be the best signing the club has made despite paying close to 700m on other players in a past year or so. Although a different player I think his ceiling is higher than Enzo overall. He is a player you have to pay up much like how we did with Rice. Ridiculous money but the player just fits.

And i don't just understand how the club started with 60m as their first bid when 70m was turned down in Jan. I understand negotiation is a thing but Brighton generally does not fcuk around and they don't need the money.
By the way his new agents are clueless so in case you get screwed here it's mostly because of them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what difference the new contract made other than tag another year to his existing deal (which had 4.5 years left at the time I think) and give him more money. Would Brighton not be in a position to demand 100M if he hadn't signed that new contract? I think they would.
 
roonster09 said:
Looks like this guy is making it complicated than it is.

When Barca announced Pedri deal, they mentioned release clause as 1 billion, when they announced Gavi, they mentioned buyout clause. It's interchangeable in the official announcement itself.

Also Atletico Madrid mentioned in their official twitter that Arsenal paid Partey's buyout clause in La Liga HQ, so player terminated the contract. Not that player paid it.




Atletico used buyout in their twitter account and release clause in their official statement, they also said Arsenal paid Partey's release clause on player's behalf.
Click to expand...


Buyout clauses are like that in Spain, not in England
 
Rajiztar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trying to follow your logic about how playing in midfield will be better for his knee injury
 
golden_blunder said:
Trying to follow your logic about how playing in midfield will be better for his knee injury
Click to expand...

A full-back like James is always transitioning between attacking and defending so most of his runs will be quick spurts in a straight line with quick turns that shift his weight to the other side of his body, which can take a heavier toll on your knees than say playing as a roaming defensive midfielder who covers a lot of ground but doesn't get in those kind of situations as often? James' body is built quite top heavy so I can see how those quick turns can be nasty on the knees.

So at least in theory I kind of get what he was going for I'm not sure if that works in reality because James' knees are already a bit wonky and it's not like midfielders don't hurt their knees all the time too.

Unless Gusto turns out to be a gem and we want to find a way to play both I don't think we should be even thinking about playing James out of position because he's already one of the best in the world at his natural position. For now it's probably better to just try handling James' match load a bit more carefully so he always has enough time to fully recover from games and see where that leads us.
 
bringbackbebe said:
Brighton knows Chelsea want Caicedo as their top target. Chelsea's current midfield looks Enzo, Gallagher (who could be sold), Chuk, Hall & Santos. I feel Hall's ready for his breakout season but not sure about Chuk & Santos. They desperately need a couple of additions here irrespective, particularly in a deeper role. I'm not surprised they're being taken to the cleaners like with Cucurella last year.
Click to expand...

Brighton would of asked for £100M whoever the club was.
 
golden_blunder said:
Trying to follow your logic about how playing in midfield will be better for his knee injury
Click to expand...
The zones he will cover as full back a lot compared to him play in DM position. Doesn't need to contribute to attack by covering distance also not need to cope with wingers in defensive phase. Cover the space of entire right with high intensity not needed when play as DM.
 
WeePat said:
Is it bullying to try and negotiate a price down?
Click to expand...

Of course not. And starting low with an initial offer is basic strategy (Arsenal did it with Rice after all).

Maybe that was the wrong word. I guess my point is just that Chelsea seemed to approach the transfer with the assumption that Brighton had to sell and that assumption was wrong.
 
jakko said:
Brighton would of asked for £100M whoever the club was.
Click to expand...

Yes, would not have mattered. I am surprised they let MacAllister go for much cheaper. Must have been something in the contract there because the disparity is huge here. I dont blame Brighton. I am still kinda wondering what the ceiling is for Caicedo. Is he vastly better than Bissouma or is Brighton's system making him look a little better than he is. Still, I was definitely interested in Arsenal getting him.
 
I seem to remember that when he was linked with us for peanuts a few years back, that Tim Vickery bloke reckoned when we didn't sign him that United had badly missed a trick...

Might have a point.
 
Powderfinger said:
Of course not. And starting low with an initial offer is basic strategy (Arsenal did it with Rice after all).

Maybe that was the wrong word. I guess my point is just that Chelsea seemed to approach the transfer with the assumption that Brighton had to sell and that assumption was wrong.
Click to expand...

This has always seemed like any other transfer saga. Brighton have been clear they're happy to sell if their valuation is met, so the assumption that they want to sell isn't incorrect. Not that they had to sell, but that they want to sell and that's a fair assumption. We told them straight up Colwill is not for sale. So far they haven't told us Caicedo isn't for sale, so the pursuit continues.
 
bringbackbebe said:
Yes and no one else would have paid them. Chelsea, by the looks of it, eventually will.
Click to expand...

And if he plays well for the next 10 years at Chelsea it's a great transfer. In a market where Havertz is going for £65M and Gallagher is valued at 50M, a player who is 21 and has stats similar to prime Kante doesn't seem that bad.
Usually when a player is a flop people care how much they cost.
 
Changeisgood said:
Yes, would not have mattered. I am surprised they let MacAllister go for much cheaper. Must have been something in the contract there because the disparity is huge here. I dont blame Brighton. I am still kinda wondering what the ceiling is for Caicedo. Is he vastly better than Bissouma or is Brighton's system making him look a little better than he is. Still, I was definitely interested in Arsenal getting him.
Click to expand...

Yeah i think MacAllister had a release clause. Liverpool have themselves a bargain.
 
WeePat said:
This has always seemed like any other transfer saga. Brighton have been clear they're happy to sell if their valuation is met, so the assumption that they want to sell isn't incorrect. Not that they had to sell, but that they want to sell and that's a fair assumption. We told them straight up Colwill is not for sale. So far they haven't told us Caicedo isn't for sale, so the pursuit continues.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I agree that they would like to sell if they can get their price.
 
Shake Jism said:
I seem to remember that when he was linked with us for peanuts a few years back, that Tim Vickery bloke reckoned when we didn't sign him that United had badly missed a trick...

Might have a point.
Click to expand...

I am not going into this deal AGAIN
 
Not the worst thing for us if Chelsea don't get him this summer. Maybe we go back in for him next summer as the Casemiro replacement
 
Cloud7 said:
Not the worst thing for us if Chelsea don't get him this summer. Maybe we go back in for him next summer as the Casemiro replacement
Click to expand...

I very much doubt his price will have dropped and I cannot see us paying 100M for him. I would not want us to either as although I understand that Brighton are entitled to hold out for the fee they want I wouldn't go above 70M for him. Case will be here another 3 years minimum I think so we can afford to buy someone who is not so far along in their development to learn from him.
 
Gandalf said:
I very much doubt his price will have dropped and I cannot see us paying 100M for him. I would not want us to either as although I understand that Brighton are entitled to hold out for the fee they want I wouldn't go above 70M for him. Case will be here another 3 years minimum I think so we can afford to buy someone who is not so far along in their development to learn from him.
Click to expand...

Case's legs can go at any point. We've seen players drop off cliffs time and time again. No telling how he will be next year.

Also next year our ownership situation and possibly FFP situation might be better such that we can go big on him. You never know.
 
Cloud7 said:
Case's legs can go at any point. We've seen players drop off cliffs time and time again. No telling how he will be next year.

Also next year our ownership situation and possibly FFP situation might be better such that we can go big on him. You never know.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's our only hope
 
roonster09 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The basic difference has to do with how release clauses actually work - because technically the clause is within the contract agreed between selling club and player, the player is responsible for "paying" for their own release. Generally this doesn't happen, but when a buying club actually triggers a buyout clause, they have to pay the entirety of the price to the player in question, which is considered for accounting purposes to be a single lump-sum payment for that year and that year only with no amortisation and it is the player who remunerates the selling club.
 
duffer said:
Where is Casemiro going next year?
Click to expand...

At some point we have to do some forward thinking and Cas will need to be replaced in the coming years, so my hope would be that rather than letting him have a disaster season at some point after which he’s replaced, that we plan ahead and get his replacement in so there can be a smooth transition.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
This is incorrect. The basic difference has to do with how release clauses actually work - because technically the clause is within the contract agreed between selling club and player, the player is responsible for "paying" for their own release. Generally this doesn't happen, but when a buying club actually triggers a buyout clause, they have to pay the entirety of the price to the player in question, which is considered for accounting purposes to be a single lump-sum payment for that year and that year only with no amortisation and it is the player who remunerates the selling club.
Click to expand...
Assuming this is correct... why is this the case? Transfer fees were amortised according to initial contract length well before FFP even existed. That's why it it bears no relation to the payment schedule. For example, we're apparently paying West Ham for Rice within two years. But the amortisation will be based on his (likely) five year contract. Why would this change if we had placed the money in escrow with Rice for him to pay West Ham?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm more asking why you're right. Assuming you are.
 
Daydreamer said:
Assuming this is correct... why is this the case? Transfer fees were amortised according to initial contract length well before FFP even existed. That's why it it bears no relation to the payment schedule. For example, we're apparently paying West Ham for Rice within two years. But the amortisation will be based on his (likely) five year contract. Why would this change if we had placed the money in escrow with Rice for him to pay West Ham?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm more asking why you're right. Assuming you are.
Click to expand...

Payment schedule and amortisation have nothing to do with each other, assuming a deal is agreed between clubs. Payment schedules only become relevant in the event of cash flow problems, which doesn't typically apply to most large PL clubs (Man United being an outlier in this case given the parasitic nature of their owners pre-sale).

The basic difference though is when a buyout clause is actually exercised is that the deal becomes a more complicated transaction - whereas in the event of a normal transfer it's a deal between two clubs who are held to the same accounting practices, in the event of a buyout clause it's technically the player who buys himself out of the deal and the club then reimburses him. This is thus considered a one-off payment for the buying club's books and it cannot be amortised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.