Enzo Fernández | signs for Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.

WeePat

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
17,382
Supports
Chelsea
The likes of CHO earns £120k per and RLC earns £150k, the notion that they don't pay nearly as much in wages as United is hogwash.

They're right up there with City in terms of wage bills
It fluctuates. We all pay obscene wages. Chelsea were first 4-5 years ago but I think we were 4th in the league like 2 years ago. I’d imagine we’re creeping up to first again after the spending spree the last two windows. Not really worth going tit for tat over when both United and Chelsea are in and around each other with the size of our wage bill.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,461
Location
Manchester

MUFC OK

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
7,216
You suggested United signed Lukaku an 8.5 year contract? Or at least that’s what it looked like you were suggesting.

Obviously amortisation isn’t new but are you really saying this approach to using it is common?
Where did I say that? It’s absolutely common but committing to 600m is still completely out of the ordinary.

FFP is completely useless. The rules change so frequently and city swatted their case against them using the best lawyers money can buy. I wish we had done what Chelsea have to sign the best players they can for a serious rebuild - we just used to swallowing the company lines from the glazers.
 

MUFC OK

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
7,216
You said United did it with Lukaku? In response to someone questioning the huge contracts?
Read it again. 5 year deal with the fee spread over the course. This is hardly new. You’re being pedantic over 5/8 year contract when I never said it was 8 years.
 

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,251
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
I didn’t say it was normal. Nobody buys 18 players every transfer window. This is a rebuild. They wanted to replace players after a new owner came in and they did that. Forest bought 22+ players and it’s not normal for them either. Once they build the squad they will revert back to spending ‘normally’.
All you've done is defend Chelsea and provide excuses for their spending. Forest spent less than 200m on their rebuild, excessive but still not unusual. Chelsea spent over half that amount on just one player. You even attempted to use our spending as a defense for Chelsea. You have no idea what they're going to do in the future. City was accused of buying the league, well the most they spent in a 12 month period was just over 300m. Chelsea have doubled that. I would assume no other club in the PL has spent more than 300m over a 12 month period

So once again, it's not normal and it's not right. You clearly think Chelsea should be able to purchase as many players as they like and spend as much money as they like. I think that opinion is in a very small minority both on redcafe and shared with football fans across England (unless they're Chelsea fans of course then I imagine they'd be loving it).
 

Edwards6

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
810
I didn’t say it was normal. Nobody buys 18 players every transfer window. This is a rebuild. They wanted to replace players after a new owner came in and they did that. Forest bought 22+ players and it’s not normal for them either. Once they build the squad they will revert back to spending ‘normally’.
They better hope the majority of them 18 are a success or they'll be stuck with them on massive contracts and have to spend big again to replace them whilst still paying off these transfers
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,461
Location
Manchester
Read it again. 5 year deal with the fee spread over the course. This is hardly new. You’re being pedantic over 5/8 year contract when I never said it was 8 years.
5 year deals are common. These are all over 7 years with many on 8.5.

I mean it’s not pedantic. It’s literally very rarely done by anyone when signed a brand new player.
 

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,251
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
Read it again. 5 year deal with the fee spread over the course. This is hardly new. You’re being pedantic over 5/8 year contract when I never said it was 8 years.
There's a pretty big difference between a 5 and 8 year contract. 3 whole years in fact. How many 6+ year contracts have ever been issued before?
 

MUFC OK

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
7,216
5 year deals are common. These are all over 7 years with many on 8.5.

I mean it’s not pedantic. It’s literally very rarely done by anyone when signed a brand new player.
Once again, I never said Lukaku was signed in an 8 year deal nor that it was normal :lol:
 

Hansi Fick

New Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
5,057
Supports
FC Bayern
Shattering the PL transfer record for some random young player from the Portuguese league. This has to be the dumbest deal in the history of the sport.
 

MUFC OK

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
7,216
There's a pretty big difference between a 5 and 8 year contract. 3 whole years in fact. How many 6+ year contracts have ever been issued before?
I was only referring to the fee being spread over the course of a contract. In accounting terms £100m for example is 5 x £20m or 8 x £12.5 yearly - neither is a large annual expense. When FFP is judged on annual spend (I think) it’s easy to see how and why the rules are being bent.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,751
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Shattering the PL transfer record for some random young player from the Portuguese league. This has to be the dumbest deal in the history of the sport.
And yet a large % of the Caf wanted United to sign him
 

galcianuk

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
40
Shattering the PL transfer record for some random young player from the Portuguese league. This has to be the dumbest deal in the history of the sport.

I mean he won the best young player award at the world cup, as well as being one of the eventual winners best players, too, ya know.
 

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,251
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
I was only referring to the fee being spread over the course of a contract. In accounting terms £100m for example is 5 x £20m or 8 x £12.5 yearly. When FFP is judged on annual spend (I think) it’s easy to see how and why the rules are being bent.
Which is the whole reason why people are pissed because it's Chelsea once again dicking around with FFP.

In isolation I wouldn't have a problem with this deal if it was a 5 year contract and they hadn't already spent 480m. It would be excessive but we've paid similar contracts and fees before, but we didn't take the piss.
 

BlueHaze

New Member
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
4,453
So once again, it's not normal and it's not right.
I do wonder all of you who keep saying this.. Are you genuinely stuck in the 90's or have you all missed that when it comes to spending and money this sport died long ago?

Not only spending but also corruption and dodging rules etc.. Why be upset when the entire industry has become so filthy as it is? Only thing Chelsea have done different to others is how much they've spent in a short time frame.

It will only become worse in the future..
 

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,251
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
I do wonder all of you who keep saying this.. Are you genuinely stuck in the 90's or have you all missed that when it comes to spending and money this sport died long ago?

Not only spending but also corruption and dodging rules etc.. Why be upset when the entire industry has become so filthy as it is? Only thing Chelsea have done different to others is how much they've spent in a short time frame.

It will only become worse in the future..
You answered your own question.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,461
Location
Manchester
Don’t forget what they paid for Chilwell, Kepa, Havertz. Will surely be the most expensively assembled first XI in history.
On a side note;

Kepa £75m
Chilwell £60m
Cucerella £63m
Fofana £73m
Gusto £40m
Koulibaly £35m
Enzo £110m
Mudryk £88m
Sterling £50m
Havertz £75m
Lukaku £100m

I’m sure I’m missing some more

Pulisic £60m
Badashille £38m
Kovacic £40m
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,751
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
All you've done is defend Chelsea and provide excuses for their spending. Forest spent less than 200m on their rebuild, excessive but still not unusual. Chelsea spent over half that amount on just one player. You even attempted to use our spending as a defense for Chelsea. You have no idea what they're going to do in the future. City was accused of buying the league, well the most they spent in a 12 month period was just over 300m. Chelsea have doubled that. I would assume no other club in the PL has spent more than 300m over a 12 month period

So once again, it's not normal and it's not right. You clearly think Chelsea should be able to purchase as many players as they like and spend as much money as they like. I think that opinion is in a very small minority both on redcafe and shared with football fans across England (unless they're Chelsea fans of course then I imagine they'd be loving it).
Pretty much every fan of any club doing the same would be happy!

It's not normal of course but they aren't breaking any rules, the rules are going to be changed in the summer so it'll likely not happen again
 

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,251
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
We should probably move some of this talk to a different thread anyway. As it's moving away from the Enzo deal specifically and more to do with Chelsea total spending and new laws (which would be an interesting thread).
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
The prices players like Nunez, Antony, Mudryk and now Fernandez have gone for makes me wince when thinking about the fees clubs will be looking for for any premium targets we want this summer.

If those players are costing that much what will the likes of Levy/Napoli look for for players like Kane and Osimhen? Hell, even a team like Benfica for Goncalo Ramos?
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,751
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Ah okay. I think it’s a misunderstanding then. I don’t think anyone is suggesting amortisation itself as a concept is new. What they are saying is using it on so many players over such a long period is.
I might have this wrong but isn't amortisation part of the FFP rules now?
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,461
Location
Manchester
The prices players like Nunez, Antony, Mudryk and now Fernandez have gone for makes me wince when thinking about the fees clubs will be looking for for any premium targets we want this summer.

If those players are costing that much what will the likes of Levy/Napoli look for for players like Kane and Osimhen? Hell, even a team like Benfica for Goncalo Ramos?
This is part of the problem now. The market is even more inflated off the back of this. The same happened when RA first arrived though, The Chavs have form.
 

P-Ro

"Full Member"
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
11,337
Location
Salford
Supports
Chelsea and AFC Wimbledon
I didn't realise redcafe had so many accountants!
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,751
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
This is part of the problem now. The market is even more inflated off the back of this. The same happened when RA first arrived though, The Chavs have form.
"The Chavs have form" - I thought the form came from goings on down the King's Rd :D
 

RedRonaldo

Wishes to be oppressed.
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
18,996
Shattering the PL transfer record for some random young player from the Portuguese league. This has to be the dumbest deal in the history of the sport.
He is top of our wish list though, and he just won the world cup too.
 

Devil_forever

You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
11,009
Location
Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
On a side note;

Kepa £75m
Chilwell £60m
Cucerella £63m
Fofana £73m
Gusto £40m
Koulibaly £35m
Enzo £110m
Mudryk £88m
Sterling £50m
Havertz £75m
Lukaku £100m

I’m sure I’m missing some more

Pulisic £60m
Badashille £38m
Kovacic £40m
Chilwell cost £45m up front and even with add ons it only reaches £50m. Cucurella was £55m up front with add ons taking it to £62m, Gusto was £27m up front, with add ons taking it to £30m, Badashille was £33m up front. But you keep inflating Chelsea’s fees though. Enzo’s fee just got released by benfica and it’s going to shock you, it’s not the fee you’ve just made up.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,461
Location
Manchester
Chilwell cost £45m up front and even with add ons it only reaches £50m. Cucurella was £55m up front with add ons taking it to £62m, Gusto was £27m up front, with add ons taking it to £30m, Badashille was £33m up front. But you keep inflating Chelsea’s fees though. Enzo’s fee just got released by benfica and it’s going to shock you, it’s not the fee you’ve just made up.
Stop stalking me you weirdo.
 

Drawfull

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
4,887
Location
Just close your eyes, forget your name
Wasn't there literally something a few days ago from the FA putting a stop to artificially-long contracts that are there only to get around FFP restrictions, and that whilst it wouldn't apply retrospectively it was going to be in force going forwards? Ah, it's not til the summer.

Regardless, as much of a damp squib FFP has been, personally I think this deliberate mistreatment of the rules is pretty shitty. Might well be legit, but it's not very ethical.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,751
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Wasn't there literally something a few days ago from the FA putting a stop to artificially-long contracts that are there only to get around FFP restrictions, and that whilst it wouldn't apply retrospectively it was going to be in force going forwards? Ah, it's not til the summer.

Regardless, as much of a damp squib FFP has been, personally I think this deliberate mistreatment of the rules is pretty shitty. Might well be legit, but it's not very ethical.
If you want ethics then football's not for you I'm afraid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.