Yeah my thoughts too,however this guy would feel like huge money unless Qatar took over
Moises Caicedo | Chelsea agree £115M fee | signed for Chelsea
- Thread starter davidmichael
- Start date
- Status
Yeah my thoughts too,however this guy would feel like huge money unless Qatar took over
Well yes? That's exactly the situation I'm talking about and you can see it in the wording of the statement - "the player has unilaterally terminated his contract with our club". That tells you that accounting-wise Partey paid Atletico to end his contract early and Arsenal reimbursed Partey - and so for FFP Arsenal had to account for that fee entirely in 2020.
This is why Chelsea have paid higher fees than clauses of late - to incentivise the selling club to agree to a deal that doesn't cripple Chelsea in terms of FFP accounting.
It says Atletico paid to La Lia HQ on player's behalf, it's not like player paid and Atletico reimbursed. Also yes, it's to terminate players contract, that's what Atletico said. Arsenal paid the money for termination, so player terminated his contract.
Also clubs pay more than release clause because it gives them favourable payment terms, not because of FFP.
Mate I don't know what to tell you but you are just wrong about this. Payment terms is purely a cash flow issue - and again outside of Man United who are undergoing a sale from notoriously tight-fisted owners it's not really an issue for the biggest clubs.
I'm not saying the player literally paid out of his bank account - I am talking about how it works from an accounting perspective. It is a simple fact that players for whom payments are made to facilitate a clause being exercised are accounted for differently than players who are transferred normally.
Anything to back this up from UEFA website?
Absolutely running the show.
The key is the subtleties of a release clause versus a buyout clause. The issue more broadly though is that they function very differently but also are terms used interchangeably by the media. Of course, UEFA has done nothing to explicitly define things; all the better to adjust the rules retrospectively as suits them as an organization.
This was posted earlier from a lawyer who works in sports and it sums things up well.
Not surprised,still fecks me off we didn't have that inside knowledge you did on the complexity of his ownership situation. That's fully down to us not having people in place who understood the South American Market and clearly you did.
Well sorry, again that's not feasible given the opacity within which UEFA operates. It's also not really within their purview to regulate or have input into employment law in different countries vis a vis the legality of buyout versus release clauses.
All I can tell you is the source linked is almost certainly the best you will get and is considered by most to be reliable.
What he says doesn't even holds true going by Atletico Madrid statement where they used both buy out and release clause for the same transfer, and we are not talking about random media. It's the official statement.
Does not matter. If its not the club directly paying, Its paying to the player like joining bonus or something like that. Even those are amortized over the length of the contract. Even agent fees is amortized.
The taxation issue is relevant though. Which is the reason generally selling club would accept that fee directly from the buying club maybe a few million more just to avoid the taxation issue as a goodwill gesture but that doesn't always happen.
The taxation issue is relevant though. Which is the reason generally selling club would accept that fee directly from the buying club maybe a few million more just to avoid the taxation issue as a goodwill gesture but that doesn't always happen.
He's not yet signed for Chelsea has he? I still hope we can get rid of the tosh like Tominay, Fred, Dvb and get him somehow.
£80 million used to buy you Cristiano Ronaldo in his prime. People can say it’s relative but he had already won a Ballon d’or and scored 44 goals that season. Nowadays you can’t buy Caicedo who is an ok prospect with 1.5 years experience in the Premier League. Money has gone mad.
Not sure what point you're making as it'd take £250m+ now to buy that same Ronaldo now.
I didn’t think about it that way. Do you really think Ronadlo would cost £250m+ in todays market? I find it crazy that Brighton rejected £80m offer for Caicedo. He can't blame anyone but himself though for naively putting his trust in Brighton and signing that contract.
He'd be a world record fee, and even then, fans would be pushing for £300m just as many knew £80m at that time wasn't enough.
Everything is adjusting in accordance with football inflation, so it's hard to state what is and is not worth anymore, but we do know what going rates are and can assess players by what similar players to them go by. Did Enzo and Rice break the market, or is it organic progression? Depends on what you think should be happening and whether that take has any bearing on the reality we've been thrust into.
I think most will agree that Brighton seeking the aforementioned going rate is logical. Might even turn round and say Chelsea only have themselves to blame for doing what they did with Enzo.
Nothing wrong with Brighton asking for more and nothing wrong with Chelsea wanting to pay less.
There seems to be a real need on here to paint either the buying or selling side as winners or losers. I noticed it so much during the Mount transfer.
There seems to be a real need on here to paint either the buying or selling side as winners or losers. I noticed it so much during the Mount transfer.
Agree with the general point, but it’s not just fans though. When we successfully negotiate a transfer there’s usually a club issued fluff piece in the media about the inside workings of the transfer and what a good deal Murtough got us due to his five-star negotiating skills.
The fee for Enzo was an overpayment for what he had so far displayed but I also think in his case paying over the odds was more justifiable because a midfielder of Enzo's profile is so much rarer than a midfielder of Caicedo's type. Finding a good midfield destroyer is generally speaking much easier than finding a playmaker type, around whom the whole team and the style of play can be built around.
I also don't think Brighton should be using Rice's fee as any kind of reference point for Caicedo. Rice has what 5 full seasons in the EPL, has played top level international football for years and has also shown good leadership skills by being the captain of West Ham. Caicedo's experience both internationally and Premier League -wise is much more limited.
Fair play to Brighton for sticking with their valuation if they're confident in the end we'll cave and pay what's necessary anyway but I don't think that's going to happen. For the deal to have a chance of going through I think they'd have to show even a little willingness to find a compromise on the fee so in the end both parties could come out reasonably happy. Currently there's a £20M difference between our latest offer (£80M) and Brighton's valuation (£100M) so if we split the difference by offering £90M and say it's going to be the absolute final bid I'm pretty sure that would clinch it. The player clearly wants the move to happen and will be adamant about it with the Brighton leaders too.
I’m aware that payment schedule and amortisation have nothing to do with each other…
Indeed, the entirety of my post is based upon this fact that we both agree upon. I’m actually kind of confused how anyone could read what I wrote and have missed that.
My question is why there is apparently a difference in amortisation when a release clause is paid upfront when there has never been any relation to payment schedule.
Consider, if Brighton demanded £100m paid over a few years, Chelsea could counter with an offer of £80m to be paid in an immediate single payment. That could theoretically be so beneficial for Brighton’s cash flow that they accept. So imagine the deal goes through and Caicedo signs a 7 year contract.
In this scenario, for accounting purposes, Caicedo’s fee is amortised over 7 years. For FFP purposes, it is amortised over 5 years as that loophole has closed.
But if that single payment was technically to Caicedo to pay Brighton, why does the amortisation change? I can see why there would be tax implications.
The reason a transfer fee is amortised is because it’s technically the purchase of a player’s registration, which by its very nature is a depreciating asset as it’s inherently linked to the length of the players contract. In reality, every transfer involves the “release” of the player under contract. A release clause merely sets a fee in advance.
By extension, a buyout clause is merely a release clause paid by the player to their current club with funds held in escrow from their new club. Why would this have any effect on amortisation?
Fair enough if it doesn’t. Or if you don’t know.
Last edited:
Given his age and position, he will be in decline now, we need to think ahead and replace him before it becomes a necessity.
And back in 1993 £80m would have bought you 21 Roy Keanes on what was at that point a record British transfer. Money been gone mad.
Do you think that's worth doing in 12 months?
Brighton do not want to sell CACEIDO and have not mentioned a price other than £150 million. He needs a new partner to replace MWEPU.
Last edited:
Shouldn’t be panicking about replacing a newly turned 31 year old. It’s absurd quite frankly.
We made that choice when we signed him in the first place.
Don't SHOUT AT US PLEASE.
The same age as, say, Kante in the same position - yes I’d say so, plus Caicedo can play further forward and at right back so he wouldn't be short of minutes even when Casemiro was fit and not suspended
I don’t feel like it was a long term choice when we signed him - we just needed someone there and then. It’s fine to make some signings like that, but not too many.
I think it may be possible that he just doesn't move this window. They are in Europa next season and Chelsea isn't.
Exactly my point - the two terms are used interchangeably but have completely different bookkeeping implications, which just adds to the confusion.
In my defense, I am very thick, so my apologies but it was never my intent to have a go!
I believe the difference is that payments to individuals versus organisations are distinct in terms of how they are accounted for. And again the key distinction is between release clauses and buyout clauses - the former being an amount that the selling club agrees to legally by the player to transfer their registration (but may have input on payment schedules or whatnot), and the latter being a legal matter of contract law where the selling club has no choice given the player is buying themselves out of the deal technically.
But anyway we signed new DM ugochikwu.May be caicedo said to us to go away you don't have europa.
. Brighton keep the player and happy. At least chelsea moved on hopefully.And in my defense, I think I've come across more aggro than I actually am - so apologies for that.
Fair enough. I can't quite get my head around why that would make a difference, but I also am a complete layman when it comes to football contract law. Or just contract law. Or law in general.
Any chance we go for him if McT and Fred leave?
No. Too expensive. We'll go with Amrabat most probably as planned.
No worries mate - and I think we are very much in the same boat vis a vis the specifics of the law.
What's happening with this?
The latest is that rejected £80M bid. Chelsea are supposedly mulling things over before returning with a 5th and a final bid. The signing of Ugochukwu is interesting because I’d hope it would, on the surface at least, make us appear less desperate for Caicedo.
- Status