Yeah I just said the same thing
Enzo Fernández | signs for Chelsea
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
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.
From what has been reported the signings this window are on low base salaries with loads of performance bonus.
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.
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:
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.
I will take great joy in Chelsea’s failures.
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.
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.
crespo.
Enzo surely won't be on only £80k p/w though?!?!
The likes of Camavinga and Tchouameni are on at least double that.
80k?
Which player for big money is getting 80k a week in this day and age?
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?
Kovacic, anyone?
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.
'Transfer expect' Nicolo Schira
They're smoking crack if they don't take 105 mill pounds
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 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.
Yeah forgot about him. Was he actually good for you though?
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.
This is fecking ridiculous with Chelsea now.
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
Yes. Unfortunately he never settled in England (in no small part thanks to losing his baby) but on the pitch he was very good.
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.
Very good. His wife hated England though and he decided to leave.
incredible finisher . 20 in 49 prem games
also admitted he regrets leaving .
Wow Chelsea are almost spending as stupidly as we did under Woodward. You can’t rush the process.
Not with you getting in the way to pull their pigtails no
So is the short version they can spend however much they like and it doesn't affect FFP?
He cannot sell the club or take dividends or leverage the club for ten years as a part of the buying contract.
I'd say they're getting a better bang for their buck than we did
They are far surpassing it. Although this deal is excellent, he is worth overspending. Absolute boss in central midfield, that we could do with.
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.
Yeah.
Looks like Arsenal might sign a dusted Jorginho to help give you some money towards FFP.
Would love him or Jorginho on loan for 6 months.
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.Looks like Arsenal might sign a dusted Jorginho to help give you some money towards FFP.
- Status