You're not selling Kepa.
Moises Caicedo | Chelsea agree £115M fee | signed for Chelsea
- Thread starter davidmichael
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
Someone somewhere will do the math, but they also sold a bunch of players for good money. We played a part in it, too, through Mount.
@Dumbstar absolutely bossing the thread. Incredible performance.
He's 100% getting wheeled out and paraded round SB tomorrow isn't he?
great bit of shithousery by Chelsea.Love this. Coupled with on-screen Whitney Houston singing " and I... will always love youu.. huu..., will always love youu..."
Dont think he can play in midfield.
In a Chelsea branded one of these.He's 100% getting wheeled out and paraded round SB tomorrow isn't he?
Why do they keep offering such long term contracts? I’m seeing 2031 being quoted?
Weren't you justifying not going for Kane to which I replied? What is midfield point?
Transfer market is completely fecked, especially for Prem players. Caicedo is a good player with solid potential, but for 115mm pounds? Absolutely insane. Masterclass from Brighton in getting that much.
I gave you the reasons they wouldn't sell & he wouldn't' come.
As for "midfield point", what thread are we in?
100 million plus is becoming normal for players who are worth nowhere near that.
Accounting magic, perhaps. Maybe it's an argument for players, huge guaranteed total wage package involved.
I reckon it's probably because they will do a lot of selling.
The group owning Chelsea already bought a French team and is looking to do the same elsewhere. I think the idea is maybe to loan aggressively so that every player is in the shop's window so to speak and doesn't depreciate.
Purchase prices are spread over the length of the contract. Money from selling players shows as a lump sum. Remember the inter Barca business. The long contracts help them out in the short term
So much Liverpool baiting over the last few days means they're absolutely going to batter us tomorrow.
It’s got 2-2 written all over it.
I'd probably take a Desmond right now.
The accounting can only be for five years from now on.
Business 101. Longer the contract, the lower your MRC will be, which can offet the massive fee especially if the club decide to sell the player within the length of the contract.
That was my understanding, hence why I think it's moreso to keep control of the players to resell them.
Yeah it wouldn’t be a terrible result for us either. You’ll score though. We’ve been all over the place defensively during pre-season.
Don't know why you are worked up, I was just asking politely about Osimhen since you talked about Kane. Anyway, carry on.
And Klopp vs Pochetttino post-match MMA?
Calm down please.
Only 8 year? Expected at least 10.
I have decided he is actually a united fan deep undercover as a “typical” annoying scouse. It’s the only plausible explanation at this point, he’s playing the part incredibly
9 year deal!
I’m a bit surprised that Chelsea have managed to continue the level of spending as last summer and still no one is really batting an eye lid.
Yeah exactly, super inflated
They sell well, and buy 2 million young players each year to sell them for profit.
The thing all about all these stupid transfer fees, apart from the impact it has on teams ability to sign players, is the impact on the clubs bottom line. If players cost twice as much, clubs aren't making as much money. Guess who that cost gets passed onto?
I thought they'd put a stop to these mega long contracts deals which are simply aimed at bypassing FFP?
I think you can still offer them but for FFP purposes you can't spread the amortisation over 5 years.
That doesn't exclude some creative accounting for other purposes than FFP.
But I think the Boehly group might approach contractual control of players in a more US sports way.
For FFP, 5 years and over counts as 5 years. You can give someone a 30 year contract if you wanted to.
Whats the point then, surely thats just taking risk for the sake of it? Was it the only way to get the player signed up, or the hope is that wage inflation is so crazy that in four or five years you are benefitting from having them on much lower wages and if they wan't more they have to agree to a sale? Seems an odd strategy to me. I know the Caiceido deal does have some oddities in the background, so unless it's due to that I don't get why you would be continuing with such long contracts?
I wouldn't be surprised there's a lot of wonky details in the payment structure of those long contracts. Something like Barca deferred wages / back loaded wages that were mentioned about de Jong. Or some of the baseball contracts where players can sometimes get yearly payments for a decade or more.
- Status